Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0012-0189
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-10-11T04:00Z

Monitoring
Inspection
Report
(40
CFR
194.42)

Of
The
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
March
24­
25,1999
Page
­1­
Table
of
Contents
1
.O
Executive
Summary
2.0
Background
3.0
Scope
4.0
Inspection
Team,
Observers,
and
Participants
5.0
Performance
of
the
inspections
5
.1
Monitoring
of
Geomechanical
Parameters
5.2
Monitoring
of
Hydrological
Parameters
5.3
Monitoring
of
Waste
Activity
Parameters
5.4
Monitoring
of
Drilling
Related
Parameters
5.5
Monitoring
of
Subsidence
Parameters
6.0
Summary
of
findings,
observation,
concerns,
and
recommendations
Attachments
Attachment
A.
1
Inspection
Plan
Attachment
A.
2
Inspection
Checklist
Attachment
B.
Opening
and
Closing
Sign
Up
Sheets
Attachment
C.
Documents
Reviewed
Attachment
D.
1
Geomechanical
Documents
Reviewed
Attachment
D.
2
Hydrological
Documents
Reviewed
Attachment
D
.3
Waste
Activity
Documents
Reviewed
Attachment
D.
4
Drilling
Related
Documents
Reviewed
Attachment
D.
5
Subsidence
Documents
Reviewed
Attachment
D.
6
Other
Documents
Reviewed
Page
­2­
Page
4
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
1.0
Executive
Summary
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
conducted
an
inspection
of
the
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(WIPP)
March
24­
25,
1999,
as
part
of
its
continuing
oversight
program.
The
purpose
of
this
inspection
was
to
verifj
that
DOE
is
monitoring
the
ten
parameters
listed
in
the
WIPP
Compliance
Certification
Application
(CCA),
Volume
1,
Section
7.0,
Table
7­
7
(See
Table
1).

The
inspection
examined
implementation
of
monitoring
for
geomechanical,
hydrological,
waste
activity,
drilling
related,
and
subsidence
parameters.
The
inspectors
toured
locations
where
measurements
are
taken,
reviewed
parameter
databases,
and
reviewed
documents
and
procedures
directing
these
monitoring
activities.

The
EPA
inspectors
found
that
DOE
through
its
contractor,
Westinghouse,
has
effectively
implemented
the
monitoring
program
at
WIPP.
As
determined
in
the
certification
decision,
May
13,
1998,
the
program
has
adequate
documentation/
procedures
governing
the
program.
The
inspection
team
also
confirmed
that
DOE'S
program
requires
reporting
the
results
of
these
various
monitoring
programs
on
an
annual
basis,
as
committed
to
in
the
CCA.

2.0
Background
The
Compliance
Criteria
at
Section
194.42
require
DOE
to
"conduct
an
analysis
of
the
effects
of
disposal
system
parameters
on
the
containment
of
waste
in
the
disposal
system"
(40
CFR
194.42
(a)).
The
results
of
this
analysis
is
to
be
include
in
the
CCA
and
is
to
be
used
to
develop
pre­
closure
and
post­
closure
monitoring
requirements.

Volume
1,
Section
7.0
of
the
CCA
documents
DOE
analysis,
Table
7­
7
ofthe
CCA
(Document
COB
DOE
194#
1,
Attachment
D.
6)
lists
the
ten
parameters
that
DOE
discovered
may
impact
the
disposal
system.
These
parameters
are
grouped
into
major
categories
and
listed
in
Table
1.

Geomechanicat
Parameters­
Waste
Activity
Pararneter­
­Creep
closure,
­Waste
Activity
­Extent
of
deformation,
­Initiation
of
brittle
deformation,
and
­DispIacernent
of
defurmatian
features.
Subsidence
Parameter­
­Subsidence
measurements
Hydrological
Parameters­
Drilling
Related
Parameters­
­Culebra
groundwater
composition
and
­Change
in
Culebrs
groundwater
flow
­Drifling
rate
and
­The
probability
of
encountering
a
direction.
Castile
brine
reservoir.

Page
­3­
EPA
approved
these
ten
monitoring
parameters
in
the
certification
rulemaking.
Section
194.42(
c)
requires
DOE
to
have
an
implemented
program
before
emplacement
of
waste
can
begin
during
the
management
and
storage
phase
of
operation.
This
inspection
was
done
to
veri@
implementation
of
the
monitoring
program
at
WIPP.

Chuck
Byrum
Nick
Stone
3.0
Scope
Inspection
Team
Leader
EPA
Inspector
EPA
Inspection
activities
included
an
examination
of
monitoring
and
sampling
equipment
both
on
and
off
site,
and
in
the
underground.
A
review
of
sampling
procedures
and
measurement
techniques
was
conducted.

4.0
Inspection
Team,
Observers,
and
Participants
The
inspection
team
consisted
of
two
representatives
of
the
EPA
Administrator.
Observers
from
the
Environmental
Evaluation
Group
(EEG),
Jim
Kenney
and
Bill
Bartlett,
were
also
present.

Page
­4­
Numerous
DOE
staff
members
and
contractors
participated
in
the
inspection.

Ron
Richardson
Ken
Mikus
Stew
art
Jones
I
Cynthia
Zlonar
I
ES&
H
WID
Waste
Ops
WID
ES&
H
WID
1
DOEKAO
­1
Linda
Jo
Dalton
I
Bob
Billett
ES&
H
WID
I
ES&
H
I
Benny
Hooda
I
ES&
H
I
lReyCarrasc0
1
Geo.
Engr.
(WID
I
1
ES&
H
I
The
inspection
began
on
Wednesday,
March
24,
1999,
with
a
presentation
by
DOE
CAO
and
WID
about
the
present
status
of
the
WlPP
monitoring
program.
Site
personnel
discussed
the
monitoring
of
waste
activity,
geotechnical
parameters,
subsidence
monitoring,
environmental
monitoring
such
as
water
levels,
and
drilling
related
parameters.

The
inspection
team
toured
and
reviewed
various
activities
to
veri@
effective
implementation
of
the
plans
and
procedures
presented
during
the
oral
presentations.
The
team
reviewed
the
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
(WWIS)
used
to
capture
the
activity
of
waste
shipped
from
the
various
generator
sites,
The
team
reviewed
the
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
program,
and
the
Ground
Control
Monitoring
program.

The
inspection
team
reviewed
the
ground
water
monitoring
program
during
the
40
CFR
19
1.03,
Subpart
A
inspection
held
on
March
22­
23,
1999.

5.0
Performance
of
the
Inspection
The
EPA
inspectors
reviewed
three
hndamental
areas
to
veri@
implementation
of
the
DOE
monitoring
program
during
the
management
and
storage
phase,
1)
written
plans
and
Page
­5­
procedures,
2)
quality
assurance
procedures
and
records,
and
3
)
results
of
the
monitoring
program
in
the
form
of
raw
data,
intermediate
reports,
and
final
annual
reports,
if
appropriate.

On
February
9­
1
1,
1999,
the
EPA
QA
Team
performed
an
annual
inspection
of
the
DOE/
WID
quality
assurance
programs.
The
DOE/
WID
programs
were
found
to
be
adequately
maintained.

The
inspection
checklist
in
Attachment
A.
2
provides
details
on
inspection
activities.

5.1
Monitoring
of
Geomechanical
Parameters
DOE
committed
to
measure
four
geomechanical
parameters
in
the
CCA;
creep
closure,
extent
of
deformation,
initiation
of
brittle
deformation,
and
displacement
of
deformation
features.
WlPP
has
four
programs
that
supply
information
for
these
four
parameters;
the
geomechanical
monitoring
program,
the
geosciences
program,
the
ground
control
program,
and
the
rock
mechanics
program.
These
programs
are
documented
in
the
"Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan"
(WP
7­
1,
Attachment
D.
l,
COB
194.
X).

The
results
of
the
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
are
documented
in
the
Geotechnical
Analysis
Report
for
July
1996
­
June
1997
(Attachment
D.
1,
COB
194.
P).

Rey
Carrasco,
contractor
for
DOE,
in
the
opening
meeting
discussed
how
the
four
geomechanical
parameters
are
measured
and
discussed
the
instrumentation
used
to
measure
the
response
of
shafts
and
underground
openings
(Attachment
D.
1,
COB
194C).
The
inspection
team
toured
and
reviewed
underground
instrumentation,
the
computer
data
base,
and
field
data
sheets
used
to
record
raw
measurement
data
(Attachment
D.
1,
COB
194L.
1
to
L.
6).
Mr.
Carrasco
showed
the
inspection
team
the
input
of
data
into
the
computer
database
and
examined
the
output
checkprint
(Attachment
D.
1,
COB
194M)
to
veri@
implementation
of
the
measurement
plan.

5.2
Monitoring
of
Hydrological
Parameters
DOE
committed
to
measure
two
hydrological
parameters
in
the
CCA;
Culebra
groundwater
composition
and
changes
in
the
Culebra
groundwater
flow
direction.
These
parameters
and
related
parameters
are
measured
and
documented
in
the
WIPP
environmental
monitoring
program.
These
programs
are
documented
in
the
Groundwater
Surveillance
Program
Pan
(WP
02­
1,
Attachment
D.
2,
COB
194.
W).

The
results
of
this
program
are
documented
in
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Site
Environmental
Report
­
Calendar
Year
1997
(Attachment
D.
2,
COB
194.
T).

In
the
opening
meeting
Stewart
Jones,
contractor
for
DOE,
discussed
the
program
used
to
measure
and
document
the
hydrological
parameters.
Mr.
Jones
discussed
the
measurement
methods
used
to
measure
groundwater
composition
and
used
to
measure
values
used
to
derive
the
direction
of
groundwater
Bow
(Attachment
D.
2,
COB
194W).
.

Page
­6­
The
inspection
team
reviewed
water
level
measurements
for
the
month
of
March
(Attachment
D.
2,
COB
1944.1
to
43).
The
team
reviewed
the
raw
data
sheets
recorded
in
the
field
and
the
quality
assurance
cross­
check,
CHECKPRINT,
procedures
(Attachment
D.
2,
COB
194R).

The
inspection
team
also
toured
the
WQSP­
2
groundwater
sampling
well
and
the
mobile
chemistry
laboratory.
Mi.
Jones
and
other
contractor
staff
presented
a
detailed
explanation
of
groundwater
composition
measurement
procedures,
such
as
dissolved
minerals,
and
quality
assurance
requirements.

5.3
Monitoring
of
Waste
Activity
Parameters
DOE
committed
to
measure
waste
activity
in
the
CCA.
This
parameter
is
part
of
the
extensive
database
collected
for
each
container
shipped
to
WIPP
and
is
stored
in
the
W
P
Waste
Information
System
(WWIS).
The
WWIS
is
a
software
system
that
screens
waste
container
data
and
provides
reports
on
the
TRU
waste
sent
to
WIPP.
The
requirements
for
the
WWIS
are
discussed
in
"WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program"
(WP
05­
WA.
02,
Attachment
D.
3,
COB
1
9
4
9
.

The
facility
demonstrated
that
the
WWIS
can
receive
data
and
that
the
WWIS
can
generate
reports.
The
CAO
has
committed
to
annual
waste
activity
reports.

Ken
Mikus,
contractor
for
DOE,
discussed
how
the
WWIS
is
used
to
record
waste
activity
information
provided
by
the
generator
sites
and
how
the
computer
database
that
is
created
is
used
to
produce
the
necessary­
reports.
The
inspection
team
toured
the
WWIS
computer
system
where
Mr.
Mikus
demonstrated
the
transmission
of
data
from
the
Los
Alamos
Laboratory
generator
site
and
how
this
information
is
used
to
develop
different
waste
activity
reports
(Attachment
D.
3,
COB
194G.

5.4
Monitoring
of
Drilling
Related
Parameters
DOE
committed
to
measure
two
drilling
related
parameters
in
the
CCA;
the
drilling
rate
and
the
probability
of
encountering
a
Castile
brine
reservoir.
These
parameters
are
measured
as
part
of
the
"Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program"
(WP
02­
PC.
02,
Attachment
D.
4,
COB
194.1).
This
surveillance
program
measures
or
records
many
parameters
related
to
drilling
activities
around
the
WIPP
site.

The
results
of
the
surveillance
program
is
documented
annually
in
the
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program
­
Annual
Report
for
October
1997
through
September
1998
(Attachment
D.
4,
COB
194.
K).

During
the
opening
meeting
David
Hughes,
contractor
for
DOE,
discussed
the
program
used
to
measure
the
drilling
rate
and
used
to
derive
the
probability
of
encountering
a
Castile
brine
reservoir.
He
discussed
the
information
sources,
such
as
Dwight's
Petroleum
commercial
information
and
the
state
of
New
Mexico
Oil
Conservation
Division.
Mr.
Hughes
explained
the
Page
­7­
data
collected
and
placed
in
the
well
information
database
and
the
quality
assurance
requirements
(Attachment
D.
4,
COB
194F).
Mr.
Hughes
provided
the
inspection
team
a
hands­
on
demonstration
of
the
computer
database
system
and
showed
examples
of
maps
produced
and
reports
generated
from
the
system
(Attachment
D.
4,
COB
194J).

5.5
Monitoring
of
Subsidence
Parameters
DOE
committed
to
measure
the
subsidence
at
the
WIPP
site
in
the
CCA.
This
parameter
is
documented
as
part
of
the
of
the
"WIF'P
Underground
and
Surface
Surveying
Program"
(WP09­
ES.
01,
Attachment
D.
5,
COB
194.
U).
The
DOE
will
perform
the
subsidence
survey
at
the
site
annually
during
pre­
closure
operations.

The
results
of
this
program
are
to
be
reported
annually
in
the
WIPP
Subsidence
Monument
Leveling
Survey
­
1998
(Attachment
D.
5,
COB
194.0).

During
the
opening
meeting
Rey
Carrasco,
contractor
for
DOE,
discussed
the
subsidence
parameter
measurements
program
(Attachment
D.
5,
COB
194D).
Mr.
Carrasco
explained
how
horizontal
and
vertical
surveys
would
be
performed
and
the
quality
assurance
requirements
for
these
surveys.
Mr
Carrasco
and
his
staff
demonstrated
to
the
inspection
team
the
survey
equipment
used,
the
methods
used
to
record
and
check
field
data,
how
these
data
are
input
into
the
computer
database
and
are
used
to
produce
the
needed
reports.

6.0
Summary
of
finding,
observation,
concerns,
and
recommendations.

EPA
performed
this
inspection
to
verify
that
DOE/
WLD
has
implemented
a
program
at
the
WIPP
site
to
monitor
the
ten
parameters
it
found
to
be
important
in
the
CCA.
During
this
inspection
the
inspectors
found
that
DOE
has
adequately
implemented
programs
to
monitoring
these
ten
parameters
during
pre­
closure
operations.
DOEiWID
also
plans
to
report
the
results
of
these
monitoring
activities
as
committed
to
in
the
CCA
documentation.

Page
­8­
Attachment
A.
1
40
CFR
194.42
Inspection
Plan
Purpose:
Veri@
that
the
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
can
demonstrate
that
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(WIPP)
is
monitoring
the
parameter
commitments
made
in
the
documentation
to
support
the
EPA's
certification
decision,
in
particular
CCA,
Volume
1,
Section
7.0
and
Appendix
MON.
This
inspection
is
conducted
under
the
authority
of
40
CFR
5
194.2
1.

This
inspection
is
part
of
EPA's
continued
oversight
to
ensure
that
WIPP
can,
in
fact,
monitor
the
performance
of
significant
parameters
of
the
disposal
system.

Scope:
Inspection
activities
will
include
an
examination
of
monitoring
and
sampling
equipment
both
on
and
off
site,
and
in
the
underground.
A
review
of
sampling
procedures
and
measurement
techniques
may
be
conducted.
Quality
assurance
procedures
and
documentation
for
each
of
these
activities
may
also
be
reviewed.

Startup
Issues:
The
specific
purpose
of
this
inspection
is
to
veri@
and
confirm
that
WIPP
has
complied
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
194.42.
As
stated
in
40
CFR
194.42(
c)
­

I­.
,
.in
no
case
shall
waste
be
emplaced
in
the
disposal
system
prior
to
the
implementation
of
pre­
closure
monitoring."

Therefore,
the
EPA
believes
it
is
appropriate
to
veri@
the
adequate
implementation
of
pre­
closure
monitoring
before
the
first
receipt
of
waste
at
WIPP.

Location:
This
inspection
will
be
held
at
the
WIPP
facility
location
twenty­
six
miles
south
east
of
Carlsbad,
New
Mexico
and
the
surrounding
vicinity
as
needed.

Duration:
The
EPA
expects
to
complete
its
inspection,
with
DOE'S
cooperation,
in
one
day.
The
day
will
begin
with
an
opening
meeting
at
8:
OO
a.
m.
and
end
at
5:
OO
p.
m.
with
a
closeout
session.

Date:
Expected
to
be
held
during
the
week
of
March
22,
1999.
Attachment
A.
2
40
CFR
194.42
Inspection
Check
List
40
CFR
194.42
­
DOE
WIPP
Monitoring
Commitments
Checklist
L
­_
~

Pre­
closure
Monitoring
Commitments
Question
Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
they
have
implemented
plans/
programs/
procedures
to
measure
­

a)
Creep
Closure;

b)
Extent
of
Deformation;

c)
Initiation
of
Brittle
Deformation
and
d)
Displacement
of
Deformation
Features
during
the
pre­
closure
phase
of
operations
as
specified
in
the
CCA
part
of
the
geomechanical
monitoring
system?

(CCA?
Volume
1,
Table
7­
7;
App
MON,
Table
MON­
1)
40
CFR
194.42
(c)
and
(e)

~

Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
they
have
implemented
an
effective
quality
assurance
program
for
item
1
above?
40
CFR
194.22
Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
the
results
of
the
geotechnical
investigations
are
reported
annually?
(CCA,
App.
MON,
Page
MON­
10)
~~
~~

Comment
(Objective
Evidence)

Item
#28,
below,
documents
the
program
planned
to
measure,
document,
report,
and
QA
these
four
activities.
Section
3.0,
item
#28
documents
the
Geomechanical
Monitoring
Program
and
records
the
activities
associated
with
this
program,
the
methods
planned
to
be
used,
and
the
reporting
plans.
Section
4.0,
item
#28
documents
the
quality
assurance
requirements
of
these
actrvities.

Items
#16
and
#17
are
examples
of
raw
data
collection
and
vedication.
Items
#18
and
#19
are
examples
of
results
of
these
monitoring
activities.

The
inspection
team
toured
and
reviewed
the
computer
system
and
database
systems
used
to
collect
and
process
these
data.

EPA
performed
a
quality
assurance
inspection
February
9­
1
1,
1999,
and
found
the
program
at
DOE/
WID
adequate.

__~~
~~

Item
#28,
page
8
requires
that
analysis
will
be
performed
annually
and
the
results
will
be
published
in
the
geotechnical
analysis
report.
­
Result
Sat.

Sat.

­
Sat.

­
Documents
Reviewed:
#7
­
WIPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Monitoring
­
Presentation
by
Rey
Carrasco
#28
­
WIPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
­
W
07­
0
1,
Revision
2
#16
­
Sample
­
raw
data
­
GIS
Field
Data
Sheets,
Room
Closure
Measurements
#17
­
Sample
­
raw
data
­
CVPT
Field
Data
Checkprint
#
18
­
Long­
Term
Ground
Control
Plan
for
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
#19
­
Geotechnical
Analysis
Report
for
July
1996
­
June
1997
40
CFR
194.42
­
DOE
WIPP
Monitoring
Commitments
Checklist
#
­
..........
..........
....................
.........
..........
..........
..........
.........
.........
..........
..........
....................
............
............
....
......
..........

1
2
­
3
­
Pre­
closure
Monitoring
Commitments
Question
Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
they
have
implemented
planslprogramsiprocedures
to
measure
­

a)
Culebra
Groundwater
Composition;

b)
Change
in
Culebra
Groundwater
Flow
Direction
during
the
pre­
closure
phase
of
operations
as
specified
in
the
CCA
part
of
WIF'P's
groundwater
monitoring
plan?

(CCA,
Volume
1;
Table
7­
7;
App
MON,
Table
MON­
1)
40
CFR
194.42
(c)
and
(e)

Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
they
have
implemented
an
effective
quality
assurance
program
for
item
1
above?
(CCA,
App
MON,
Page
MON­
22)
40
CFR
194.22
Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
the
results
of
the
groundwater
monitoring
program
are
reported
annually­
'?
(CCA.
App.
MON,
Page
MON­
22)
Comment
(Objective
Evidence)

Item
#27,
below,
documents
the
program
planned
to
measure,
document,
report,
and
QA
these
two
activities.
Item
#27
documents
the
Groundwater
Surveillance
Program
Plan
and
records
the
activities
associated
with
this
program,
the
methods
planned
to
be
used,
and
the
reporting
plans.
Section
4.0,
item
#27
documents
the
quality
assurance
requirements
of
these
activities.

Item
#22
is
an
example
of
actual
water
level
measurements.
Item
#21
is
an
computer
print
out
of
these
measurements
and
item
#23
is
a
checkprint
of
these
same
measurements
with
a
signature
verifying
QA
review.
Item
#23
is
an
example
of
results
of
these
monitoring
activities.

The
inspection
team
toured
and
review.:
+he
WQSP­
2
borehole
location
to
evaluate
water
measurement
techniques.
The
team
also
evaluated
the
chemical
analysis
performed
in
the
mobile
laboratory.

~~
~
~

EPA
performed
a
quality
assurance
inspection
February
9­
1
1,
1999,
and
found
the
program
at
DOE/
WD
adequate.

Item
#27,
page
28
documents
that
results
of
monitoring
will
be
reported
annually
and
will
be
published
in
the
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
(ASER).
Result
Sat.

Sat.

Sat.

Documents
Reviewed:
#9
­
Environmental
Monitoring
40
CFR
194
­
Presentation
by
Stewart
Jones
#27
­
Groundwater
Surveillance
Program
Plan
­
WP
02­
1,
Revision
3
#21
­
Computer
printouts
of
water
level
measurements
measured
during
the
month
of
March
1999
#22
­
Actual
field
copies
of
raw
data
of
water
levels
measured
in
March
1999
#23
­
Samples
of
signed
quality
assurance
check
prints
of
water
level
measurements
during
the
month
of
March
#21
­
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Site
Environmental
Report
­
Calendar
Year
1997
1999
40
CFR
194.42
­
DOE
WIPP
Monitoring
Commitments
Checklist
#
.................
...................
............
....................
....................
....................
............
.......
.~,.:.:.:.:.
y,.:.:

­
..........
.......

1
2
­
3
­
Pre­
closure
Monitaring
€ornmitments
Question
Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
they
have
implemented
plans/
programs/
procedures
to
measure
­

a>
Waste
Activity?

(CCA,
Volume
1,
Table
7­
7;
App
MON,
Table
MON­
1)
40
CFR
194.42
(c)
and
(e)

Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
they
have
implemented
an
effective
quality
assurance
program
for
item
I?
(CCA,
App
WAP,
page
C­
30)
40
CFR
194.22
~~

Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
the
results
of
the
waste
activity
parameters
are
reported
annually'?
(CCA
Volume.
Section
7.2.4
Reporting)
Comment
(Objective
Evidence)

WWIS
will
be
used
to
measure
and
store
waste
activity
among
other
things.
Item
#26,
below,
documents
the
program
planned
to
measure,
document,
report,
and
QA
this
activity.
Item
#26
documents
the
WWIS
Program
and
records
the
activities
associated
with
this
program,
the
methods
planned
to
be
used,
and
the
reporting
plans.

Item
#I
1
is
an
example
of
the
Waste
Container
Report
for
LANL
waste
shipped
on
March
25,
1999
and
item
#I2
is
an
example
of
the
Nuclide
Report
for
test
waste
data.

The
inspection
team
toured
and
reviewed
the
WWIS
computer
system
and
the
database
computer
program.
The
team
reviewed
the
query
capabilities
of
the
system
to
produce
waste
activity
reports.

~~~

EPA
performed
a
quality
assurance
inspection
February
9­
1
1.
1999,
and
found
the
program
at
DOE/
WID
adequate.

Item
#26,
page
19
documents
that
results
of
monitoring
will
be
reported
annually.

Documents
Reviewed:
#6
­
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
(WWIS)
­
Presentation
by
Ken
Mikus
#26
­
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
­
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Revision
0
#I
1
­
Sample
'Waste
Container
Data
Report'
from
the
WWIS
#I2
­
Samole
'Nuclide
Report'
from
the
WWIS
Result
Sat.

Sat.

Sat.

­
40
CFR
194.42
­
DOE
WWP
Monitoring
Commitments
Checklist
­
#

I
2
­
3
Pre­
closure
and
Post
Closure
Monitoring
Commifments
Question
Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
they
have
implemented
plans/
programs/
procedures
to
measure
­

a)
Drilling
Rate;
and
b)
Probability
of
Encountering
a
Castile
Brine
Reservoir?

(CCA,
Volume
1,
Table
7­
7;
App
MON,
Table
MON­
1)
40
CFR
194.42
(c)
and
(e)

Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
they
have
implemented
an
effective
quality
assurance
program
for
item
1
above'?
(CCA,
App
DMP,
page
DMP­
9)
40
CFR
194.22
­~~
__~~
~
~~

Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
the
results
of
the
drilling
related
parameters
are
reported
annually?
(CCA
Volume,
Section
7.2.4
Reporting;
App
DMF,
page
DMP­
9)
~~
~

Comment
(Objective
Evidence)

ltem
#13,
below,
documents
the
program
planned
to
measure,
document,
report,
and
QA
these
two
activities.
Item
#
13
documents
the
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Plan
and
records
the
activities
associated
with
this
program,
the
methods
planned
to
be
used,
and
the
reporting
plans.
Section
6.0,
item
#13
documents
the
quality
assurance
requirements
of
these
activities.

Item
#
14
is
an
example
of
the
information
recorded
and
stored
in
the
drilled
hole
database.
Item
#
15
is
a
copy
of
the
annual
report;
page
15
shows
the
1998
calculation
of
the
dnlling
rate
and
page
shows
a
discussion
of
Castile
brine
pockets.

The
inspection
team
toured
and
reviewed
the
computer
and
database
system
used
to
record
and
store
drill
hole
data.
The
team
reviewed
the
report
and
mapping
capabilities
of
the
computer
system..

EPA
performed
a
quality
assurance
inspection
February
9­
1
1,
1999,
and
found
the
program
at
DOE/
WID
adequate.

Item
#13.
page
5
documents
that
results
of
monitoring
will
be
reported
annually.

­
Documents
Reviewed:
#10
­
Delaware
Basin
Surveillance
Plan
­
Presented
by
David
Hughes
#13
­
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Plan
­
WF'
02­
PC.
02,
Revision
0
#14
­
Sample
print
out
from
the
drilling
surveillance
computer
database
#15
­
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program
­
Annual
Report
for
October
1997
through
September
1998
Result
Sat.

Sat.

Sat.

­
40
CFR
194.42
­
DOE
WIPP
Monitoring
Commitments
Checklist
#
­
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.........
.::.
v
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
2
3
­
Pre­
closure
and
Poet
CIosure
Monitoring
Commitments
Question
Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
they
have
implemented
plans/
programs/
procedures
to
measure
­

a)
Subsidence
measurements?

(CCA,
Volume
1,
Table
7­
7;
App
MON,
Table
MON­
I)
40
CFR
194.42
(c)
and
(e)

Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
they
have
implemented
an
effective
quality
assurance
program
for
item
I?
40
CFR
194.22
Does
DOE
demonstrate
that
the
results
of
the
subsidence
measurements
are
reported
annuallv?
(CCA
Volume,
Section
7.2.4
Reporting)
~
~~~

Comment
(Objective
Evidence)

Item
#25,
below,
documents
the
program
planned
to
measure,
document,
report,
and
QA
these
two
activities.
Item
#25
documents
the
WIPP
Underground
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
and
records
the
activities
associated
with
this
program,
the
methods
planned
to
be
used,
and
the
reporting
plans.
Section
4.0,
item
#25
documents
the
quality
assurance
requirements
of
these
activities.

Item
#20
is
a
copy
of
the
annual
report
for
1998.

The
inspection
team
toured
and
reviewed
the
computer
and
database
system
used
to
record
and
store
subsidence
survey
data.
The
team
reviewed
the
report
and
mapping
capabilities
of
the
computer
system..

EPA
performed
a
quality
assurance
inspection
February
9­
1
1,
1999,
and
found
the
program
at
DOE/
WID
adequate.

Item
#25,
page
11
documents
that
results
of
monitoring
will
be
reported
annually
Documents
Reviewed:
#8
­
WIPP
Subsidence
Monitoring
­
Presented
by
Rey
Carrasco
#25
­
WIPP
Underground
and
Surface
Surveying
Program
­
WP
09­
ES.
O1,
Revisi'on
1
#20
­
WIPP
Subsidence
Monument
Leveling
survey
­
1998
Result
Sat.

Sat.

Sat.

I
Attachment
B
Opening
and
Closing
Sign
Up
Sheets
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
CFR
194.42
OPENING
MEETING
ATTENDANCE
n
March
24,
1999
PRINTED
NAME
_L
/

t
Tw
9`
s
PHONE
NUMBER
a
34,893
3/
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
March
25,
1999
CFR
194.42
CLOSE­
OUT
MEETING
ATTENDANCE
Attachment
C
Documents
Reviewed
4
I
I
cc)
d
m
I
I
­­

I
I
?

*
a
*
m
s
vi
$
vi
;
*
s
f
a
I
$2
O
*
a+

0
cl
m
;I"

N
N
*
?
*
m
$

d
N
m
L,
0
j
k
M
N
m
$

c?
n
&

i?
i?
b
a
\o
N
m
$

c?
c11
U
O
S
a
4
+
0
9
z
2
M
a
e
P
N
01
N
Attachment
D.
1
Geomechanical
Documents
Reviewed
1
Effective
Date:
0311
619
WP
07­
01
Revision
2
WIPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
Cognizant
Section:
Geotechnical
Enaineerina
Approved
By:
S.
J.
Patchet
Cognizant
Department:
Enaineerina
Approved
By:
J.
J.
Garcia
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
.

I
1
.O
INTRODUCTION
....................................................................................................
1
.1
Backaround
1
1.2
Geosciences
Pfoclram
.....................................................................................
2
1.3
Geomechanical
Monitorina
Prosram
...........................................................
2
1.4
Rock
Mechanics
Proaram
.............................................................................
2
1.5
Ground
Control
Proaram
..............................................................................
2
2.0
ADMlNlSTRATlON
3
2.1
Oraanization
....................................................................................................
3
2.2
Responsibilities
3
2.3
Trainina
and
Qualifications
..........................................................................
3
.....................................................................................................

.................................................................................................

...........................................................................................
­.;.

3.0
TECHNICAL
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
...............................................................
3
3
3.1
Geosciences
Proqram
.....................................................................................
3
3.1
.I
Background
.........................................................................................
4
3.1.2
Purpose
...............................................................................................
3.1.3
Scope
4
3.1.4
Methods
4
3.2
Geomechanical
Monitorina
Prosram
...........................................................
5
6
3.2.1
Background
........................................................................................
6
3.2.2
Purpose'
..............................................................................................
6
3.2.3
Scope
..................................................................................................
3.2.4
Methods
7
3.3
Rock
Mechanics
Proclrarn
...........................................................................
10
3.3.1
Background
10
3.3.2
Purpose
10
3.3.3
Scope
10
3.3.4
Methods
11
Ground
Control
Prosram
............................................................................
12
13
3.4.1
Background
......................................................................................
3.4.2
Purpose
13
3.4.3
Scope
14
3.4.4
Methods
14
..................................................................................................
..............................................................................................

..........................................................................................
....

......................................................................................
............................................................................................
................................................................................................
.............................................................................................
3.4
............................................................................................
................................................................................................
.............................................................................................

4.0
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
15
........................................................................................
4.1
Desian
Control
15
15
4.2
Procurement
................................................................................................
15
4.3
Instructions,
Procedures
and
Drawinas
.........................................................
4.4
Document
Control
16
................
16
4.5
Control
of
Purchased
Material,
Equbment.
and
Services
:
............
4.6
Identification
and
Control
of
Items
16
4.7
Test
Control
16
.............................................................................................

.......................................................................................

............................................................
.................................................................................................
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
4.8
Software
Reauirements
..............................................................................
17
4.9
Control
of
Monitoring
and
Data
Collection
Equipment
..................................
18
4.1
0
4.1
1
Control­
of
Nonconformina
Conditiondltems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
_..
.
._.
.
....
.
18
4.12
Corrective
Actions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
...
.
..
18
4.1
3
4.14
4.15
Handha.
Storaae.
and
Shirminq
.
....
....
...
....
..
...
.....
..
......
..........
.....
..
18
Records
Manaaement
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
...
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
...
._
....
.
...
...
.......
19
Audits
and
Independent
Assessments
.......
....
...
........
.
...
.._....
.............
19
Data
Reduction
and
Verification
..
.
..
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
....
..
...
.
.
.
.
.
............
......
.
.
19
19
5.0
REFERENCES
...............................................................,.............~......­.......­......­..

ii
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
I
.O
INTRODUCTION
This
document
defines
the
field
programs
and
investigations
to
be
carried
out
by
tbe
Waste
Isolation
Division
(WID)
Geotechnical
Engineering
Section.
The
geotechnical
engineering
programs
are
designed
to
provide
scientific
information
necessary
to
establish
a
high
level
of
understanding
of
site
characteristics
and
to
assess
the
stability
and
performance
of
the
underground
facility.
Programs
currently
consist
of
the
following
activities:

Geosciences
Geomechanical
Monitoring
Ground
Control
Rock
Mechanics
These
programs
will
be
implemented
and
controlled
by
this
program
plan.

1.1
Backaround
The
programs
listed
in
Section
2
will
demonstrate
the
safe
disposal
of
transuranic
waste,
both
in
the
short­
term
(during
the
operational
life
of
the
facility)
and
in
the
long­
term
(following
decommissioning),
that
will
satisfy
the
appropriate
federal
regulations
governing
isolation
of
the
waste.
The
data
will
increase
confidence
,in
the
effectiveness
and
safety
of
the
underground
operations,
validate
the
design,
support
site
characterization
and
performance
assessment
activities,
and
support
activities
required
for
research
and
technological
development.

Drivers
for
these
programs
include
the
Consultation
and
Cooperation
Agreement
with
the
state
of
New
Mexico,
which
stipulates
continuing
studies
of
the
site
geology;
t
h
e
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
standards
for
management
of
transuranic
waste;
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act;
and
the
Mine
Safety
and
Health
Administration.
These
programs
implement
the
applicable
portions
of
systems
AUOO
and
EM00
System
Design
Description
(SOD).
The
programs
will
also
ensure
that
the
facility
operates
safely
and
that
data
are
available
to
make
decisions
for
managing
and
performing
engineering
and
operational
activities.

Field
activities
will
be
organized
into
four
programs
that
cover:

Geosciences
Rock
mechanics
evaluation
Ground
control
assessments
Data
collection
from
geomechanical
instrumentation
Each
field
program
will
be
controlled
by
a
program
plan
describing
the
general
scope
of
the
investigation,
its
methods,
and
quality
assurance
requirements.

...
Ill
WiPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
I
.2
Geosciences
Proaram
The
Geosciences
Program
will
continue
confirmation
of
site
suitability
based
on
field
activities
such
as
geologic
mapping
of
the
facility
horizon
excavations
and
logging
of
cores.
These
activities
will
be
used
to
characterize,
demonstrate
the
continuity
of,
and
document
the
geology
exposed
in
the
underground
excavations.
The
program
also
will
maintain
a
storage
facility
for
site­
generated
geologic
samples
and
a
local
seismic
monitoring
system.

1.3
Geomechanical
Monitorina
Proaram
The
Geomechanical
Monitoring
Program
will
provide
data
on
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(WIPP)
geotechnical
berformance
design
for
design
validation
and
the
short­
term
and
long­
term
behavior
of
underground
openings,
and
routine
evaluations
of
the
safety
and
stability
of
excavations.
Data
on
the
stability
and
closure
of
underground
excavations
will
be
used
to
identify
areas
of
potential
instability
and
allow
remedial
actions
to
be
taken.

Monitoring
of
geotechnical
parameters
will
be
performed
using
geomechanical
instruments,
including
tape
extensometer
stations,
convergence
meters,
borehole
extensometers,
piezometers,
strain
gauges,
load
cells,
crack
meters,
and
other
instruments
installed
in
the
shafts
and
drifts
of
the
WIPP
facility.

1.4Rock
Mechanics
Procrram
The
Rock
Mechanics
Program
will
assess
of
the
performance
of
the
underground
facility.
Data
from
geomechanical
monitoring
and
geosciences
observations
will
be
used
to
evaluate
the
current
and
future
performance
of
the
excavations.
Numerical
modeling
and
empirical
methods
will
be
used
to
evaluate
the
effects
of
proposed
design
changes
and
the
long­
term
behavior
of
the
underground
facility.

1.5Ground
Control
Proararn
The
Ground
Control
Program
will
ensure
that
the
underground
is
safe
from
any
unexpected
roof
or
rib
falls.
It
will
provide
the
experience
necessary
to
design
ground
control
systems
for
the
host
rock,
to
monitor
ground
control
system
performance
through
data
and
observations,
and
to
allow
projections
to
be
made
regarding
future
ground
support
requirements.

2
WIPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
2.0ADMINISTRATION
2.1
Oraanization
The
WID
organizational
structure
is
described
in
the
WID
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description
(WP
13­
1
).
Geotechnical
Engineering
reports
to
the
Engineering
Department
senior
manager.

2.2
Remonsibilities
The
Geotechnical
Engineering
manager
and
staff
are
responsible
for
achieving
and
maintaining
quality
in
the
geotechnical
engineering
programs.

2.3Trainina
and
Qualifications
Personnel
who
perform
specific
tasks
associated
with
geological
and
geotechnical
data
collection,
engineering
assessments,
and
quality
assurance/
quality
control
measures
will
be
trained
and
qualified
in
the
application
of
the
specific
requirements
to
complete
their
tasks.
The
minimum
training
requirements
for
engineering
personnel
are
identified
in
the
Engineering
Technical
Training
Requirements
Policy.

3.0TECHNlCAL
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
3.1
Geosciences
Proqram
The
Geosciences
Program
contains
activities
that
continue
confirmation
of
site
suitability
through
surface
and
underground
field
investigations.
These
activities
wiil
generate
data
used
in
monitoring
the
repository
and
in
rock
mechanics
studies.
Information
from
the
Geosciences
Program
will
be
used
to
document
the
existing
geologic
conditions
and
characteristics
and
to
monitor
for
changes
resulting
from
the
excavations.
Activities
associated
with
this
program
will
include
geologic
and
fracture
mapping,
maintenance
of
a
facility
for
the
storage
of
geologic
samples
(the
Core
Library),
seismic
monitoring
and
evaluation,
and
other
activities
performed
as
needed.
The
program
will
describe
the
general
scope
of
investigations,
the
methods,
and
program
requirements.
The
plan
will
be
updated
periodically
to
reflect
additions
and
changes
to
the
program.

3.1.1
Background
The
Los
Medanos
area
has
been
studied
since
1974
to
assess
site
capability
for
isolation
of
radioactive
waste.
The
present
WIPP
site
was
selected
in
1976
and
has
been
under
continuous
investigation
since
that
time
as
a
site
for
containment
and
isolation
of
transuranic
radioactive
waste.
Because
geology
is
the
principal
factor
in
the
isolation
of
the
waste
from
the
accessible
environment,
the
Geosciences
Program
provided
important
data
for
site
characterization
and
was
integral
to
the
decision
an
the
3
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
design
of
the
facility.
Extensive
geologic
characterization
of
drifts
and
shafts
was
performed
under
the
Site
and
Preliminary
Design
Validation
Program
for
confirmation
of
site
suitability.
The
program
provided
the
basis
for
the
decision
to
proceed
with
construction
of
the
WIPP
facility.

The
Geotechnical
Engineering
Geosciences
Program
was
developed
to
continue
confirmation
of
site
suitability
based
on
field
activities
such
as
geologic
mapping
of
the
facility
and
near
surface
stratigraphic
horizons,
core
logging,
and
geophysical
surveys.
These
activities
characterize,
demonstrate
the
continuity
of,
and
document
the
geology
at
the
site.
The
program
maintains
a
library
of
site­
generated
geologic
samples
and
quarterly
reporting
of
the
results
of
local
seismic
monitoring.
The
program
is
also
responsible
for
the
collection
of
geologic
and
structural
data
and
other
section
activities
as
required.

3.1.2
Purpose
The
purpose
of
the
Geosciences
Program
is
to
confirm
the
suitability
of
the
site
based
on
continuing
field
activities.

3.1.3
Scope
Site
investigations
will
be
performed
as
required,
or
as
determined
useful,
for
enhancement
of
the
site
geologic
characterization
knowledge
base.
Activities
will
include
reconnaissance
geologic
mapping
of
new
excavations,
detailed
geologic
mapping,
investigations
of
regional
exposures,
and
geologic
support
to
projects
conducted
by
other
site
participants.
The
activities
associated
with
the
Geosciences
Program
are
designed
to:

Provide
additional
site
geological
characterization
based
on
geologic
mapping
of
excavations
and
core
logging
Maintain
a
current
data
base
on
mineralogy,
chemistry,
and
textural
feature
characteristics
of
the
local
geology
Maintain
a
current
level
of
knowledge
on
the
geohydrology
of
the
Salado
and
Rustier
Formations
based
on
geologic,
hydrologic,
and
geochemical
data
Monitor
the
local
seismicity
using
a
series
of
surface­
based
seismographs.
As
part
of
this
activity,
analyses
will
be
performed
to
determine
if
any
correlation
of
seismic
events
with
mining
or
petroleum
recovery
operations
can
be
estabtished
3.1.4
Methods
Routine
tasks
will
be
carried
out
according
to
approved
WlPP
procedures.
Activities
in
4
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
development
or
those
not
expected
to
be
performed
routinely
will
be
performed
in
accordance
with
industry
standards
or
individual
program
plans
that
supplement
this
program
plan.

Routine
Activities
Seismic
Monitoring
­
Seismic
monitoring
and
evaluation
will
be
carried
out
by
the
New
Mexico
Institute
of
Mining
and
Technology,
a
subcontractor
to
WID.

Geologic
Mapping
­
Geologic
mapping
will
be
performed
in
newly
excavated
areas
and
when
the
cognizant
engineer
or
Geotechnical
Engineering
manager
deems
it
necessary.
The
mapping
results
will
be
documented
in
the
annual
geotechnical
analysis
reports
and
appropriate
topical
reports.

All
drifts
and
rooms
in
which
geologic
mapping
was
not
conducted
will
be
visually
inspected
by
the
cognizant
engineer,
or
designee,
within
three
months
of
excavation
to
verify
that
the
exposed
rock
units
are
laterally
continuous
and
similar
to
those
exposed
in
the
mapped
areas
of
the
facility.
Any
unusual
features
will
be
reported
in
the
annual
geotechnical
analysis
reports.

Fracture
Mapping
­
Fracture
mapping
will
be
performed
and
carried
out
by
the
cognizant
engineer,
designee,
or
Geotechnical
Engineering
manager
at
locations
selected
in
accordance
with
accepted
industry
practice.
Observations
from
boreholes
and
excavated
surfaces
will
be
used
in
performance
assessments
of
the
underground
faci
I
ity.

Core
Library
Operations
­
Geotechnical
Engineering
will
maintain
a
repository
for
geologic
samples
that
have
been
determined
necessary
for
long­
term
storage.
Approved
WlPP
procedures
define
the
proper
methods
for
maintaining
the
sample
repository,
the
submittal
of
core
to
the
Core
Library,
maintenance
of
the
Core
Storage
Facility
(inventory,
handling,
and
distribution),
authorization
for
access
to
view
the
core
on­
site,
and
authorization
to
remove
samples
from
the
library.

Other
Activities
of
the
Geosciences
Proqram
Test
plans
will
be
developed
for
geoscience
activities
that
are
in
a
developmental
stage
or
are
not
routinely
performed.
They
will
include
or
reference
the
appropriate
proce­
dures
to
ensure
that
all
necessary
steps
for
completion
are
carried
out.
The
plans
will
detail
specific
plans
that
describe
the
activity,
location,
procedure,
etc.

3.2Geomechanical
Monitorina
Proararn
The
Geomechanical
Monitoring
Program
will
monitor
the
geomechanical
response
of
the
underground
openings
after
mining.
It
will
also
monitor
geotechnical
instruments
5
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
installed
in
the
shafts
and
drifts
of
the
WlPP
facility.
Geotechnical
instrumentation
installed
in
the
shafts
and
underground
includes
tape
extensometer
points,
convergence
meters,
borehole
extensometers,
piezometers,
strain
gages,
load
cells,
and
crack
meters.
The
instrumentation
is
sensitive
enough
to
detect
small
changes
in
rock
displacements
and
rock
stresses.

Information
generated
by
this
program
will
be
documented
in
annual
geotechnical
analysis
reports.
The
data
will
be
documented
more
frequently
as
recommended
by
the
cognizant
engineer
or
manager.
An
assessment
of
convergence
measurements
and
geotechnical
observations
will
be
made
after
each
round
of
measurements.
The
results
of
this
assessment
will
be
distributed
to
affected
underground.
operations,
engineering,
and
safety
managers.

This
plan
describes
the
general
scope
of
the
investigation,
methods,
and
program
requirements,
and
will
be
updated
periodically
to
reflect
additions
and
changes.

3.2.1
Background
The
instrumentation
system
has
provided
data
on
the
performance
of
the
WlPP
design
for
design
validation
and
for
projecting
the
long­
term
behavior
of
the
underground
openings,
and
routine
evaluation
of
safety
and
excavation
stability.
From
an
opera­
tional
standpoint,
the
geomechanical
data
allow
the
identification
of
areas
of
potential
instability
and
for
remedial
action
to
be
taken.
To
determine
the
long­
term
behavior
of
the
repository,
assessments
will
rely
heavily
on
the
extrapolation
of
in­
situ
data,
taken
over
a
period
of
years,
to
predict
thousands
of
years
of
repository
performance.

The
engineering
performance
of
the
WIPP
host
rock
is
important
in
the
assessment
of
the
design
of
the
operating
facility
and
its
long­
term
performance.
Of
significance
are
the
time­
dependent
properties
of
the
salt.
Sandia
National
Laboratories
has
carried
out
extensive
experimental
work
to
establish
an
appropriate,
constitutive
relationship
for
salt
that
can
predict
its
in­
situ
mechanical
performance.
To
validate
the
adequacy
of
the
facility
design,
field
data
from
geomechanical
instrumentation
are
used
to
determine
actual
mechanical
performance
of
the
shafts
and
excavations
at
the
facility
horizon.

3.2.2
Purpose
The
purpose
of
the
Geomechanical
Monitoring
Program
is
to
determine
the
geomech­
anical
performance
of
the
underground
excavations
at
WIPP.
Data
on
stability
and
closure
are
needed
for
operational
considerations
and
for
performance
assessment.

3.2.3
Scope
The
activities
associated
with
the
Geotechnical
Monitoring
Program
are
designed
to:

6
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
Maintain
and
augment
the
geotechnical
instrumentation
system
in
the
WlPP
underground
and
upgrade
the
automatic
data
acquisition
system
as
necessary
0
Monitor
geotechnical
instrumentation
on
a
regular
basis
and
maintain
a
current
data
base
of
instrument
readings
Evaluate
the
geotechnical
instrumentation
data
and
prepare
regular
reports
that
document
the
data
and
analyses
describing
the
stability
and
performance
of
underground
openings
Recommend
corrective
or
preventive
measures
to
ensure
excavation
stability
and
safe
operation
of
the
facility
3.2.4
Methods
The
process
by
which
geomechanical
monitoring
of
an
area
is
initiated
may
vary
as
part
of
operational
excavation
monitoring
or
research
testing.
Proper
documentation
and
analysis
is
common
to
all.
Installation
and
monitoring
of
the
instruments
wifl
be
governed
by
approved
WlPP
procedures.
The
instrumentation
will
be
monitored
remotely
using
data
loggers
or
read
manually.
Routine
tasks
will
be
carried
out
according
to
approved
WIPP
procedures.
Activities
which
are
in
development,
or
which
are
not
expected
to
be
performed
routinely,
will
be
performed
in
accordance
with
industry
standards
or
individual
program
plans
that
supplement
this
program
plan.

Data
Acquisition
The
remotely
polled
instruments
are
connected
to
a
surface
computer
through
a
system
of
cables,
termination
boxes,
and
data
loggers.
The
manually
read
instruments
will
be
monitored
using
electronic
read­
out
boxes
and
mechanical
measuring
devices.
The
data
will
be
collected
on
a
quarterly
basis
at
a
minimum,
but
more
frequent
readings
may
be
collected
as
determined
by
the
cognizant
engineer
or
manager.

Geomechanical
Data
Loqqincl
Svstem
The
system
consists
of
surface
computers,
modems,
data
loggers,
and
associated
interconnecting
cabling.
The
instrumentation
is
routed
to
local
termination
cabinets
or
accessor
boxes
at
various
locations
in
the
underground.
These
contain
the
electronic
hardware
needed
for
multiplexing,
signal
conditioning,
data
conversion,
and
communi­
cating
with
the
surface
computers,
which
are
connected
by
a
dedicated
communica­
tions
data
link
cable.
The
surface
computers
communicate
through
modems
using
a
series
of
communication
and
data
management
software.
programs,
The
data
from
the
instruments
will
be
maintained
in
individual
data
bases
for
each
instrument
type.

Instrumentation
7
WIPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
The
instrumentation
used
at
WIPP
is
widely
accepted
in
the
geotechnical
and
mining
industry.
Geomechanical
instrumentation
installed
in
the
shafts
and
underground
includes
tape
extensometer
points,
convergence
meters,
borehole
extensometers,
rockbolt
load
cells,
pressure
cells,
crack
meters,
strain
gauges,
and
piezometers.
The
instrumentation
is
sensitive
to
small
changes
in
rock
displacement
and
stress.
The
geomechanical
instruments
will
be
installed
and
monitored
in
accordance
with
approved
procedures
or
written
instructions.
Instrument
types,
monitoring
usage,
and
typical
installation
locations
are
listed
in
the
following
table.

Data
Analvsis
and
Dissemination
of
Data
The
frequency
of
analyses
of
geomechanical
data
will
be
based
on
the
requirements
established
in
design
documents
and
regulatory
requirements,
and
as
determined
by
the
geornechanical
instrumentation
cognizant
engineer.
A
comprehensive
analysis
of
the
data
will
be
performed
annually.
Results
of
t
h
e
analyses
will
be
published
in
geotechnical
analysis
reports.
Data
may
be
released
to
external
sources
more
8
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
frequently
with
consent
from
the
Department
of
Energy.

Assessments
of
the
convergence
measurements
and
other
geotechnical
observations
will
be
performed
after
each
round
of
complete
measurements.
Results
will
be
distributed
to
affected
underground
operations,
engineering,
and
safety
groups.
Data
analyses
may
be
performed
on
a
more
frequent
basis,
as
recommended
by
the
cognizant
engineer
or
manager.

Calibration
Measurement
and
data
collection
equipment
used
to
read
the
geotechnical
instruments
will
be
calibrated
in
accordance
with
approved
WlPP
procedures.
Frequency
of
calibration
will
be
based
on
manufacturer
recommendations
upon
receipt
of
the
measuring
device
at
the
WIPP
site,
or
as
determined
by
the
cognizant
engineer.
Calibration
records
will
be
kept
on
file
in
Geotechnical
Engineering.

Routine
Activities
Maintenance
will
be
performed
as
needed.
When
an
instrument
is
damaged
or
erroneous
readings
are
suspected,
the
instrument
will
be
physically
inspected
and
evaluated
for
repairs
or
replacement.
If
repair
efforts
are
unsuccessful,
that
instrument
will
be
documented
as
malfunctioning
and
monitoring
discontinued
until
the
instrument
has
been
replaced
or
abandoned.

Inspections
of
the
instrumentation
and
data
logging
components
will
be
performed
during
monitoring
activities,
These
inspections
check
the
physical
condition
of
the
instrumentation,
junction
boxes,
and
cabling
for
damage,
corrosion,
and
loose
parts.
Any
unusual
observations
or
deterioration
will
be
documented
on
the
Geotechnical
Instrumentation
System
field
data
sheets
and
the
cognizant
engineer
will
be
notified
of
existing
conditions.

The
inspection
results
and
performance
of
the
instrumentation
and
data
logging
components
will
be.
evaluated
by
comparing
the
monitoring
results
against
previous
readings.
These
evaluations
will
be
used
to
determine
whether
the
geomechanical
instrumentation
and
data
acquisition
system
are
performing
as
anticipated.

9
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
.
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
Other
Activities
of
the
Geomechanical
Monitorinq
Proqram
Test
plans
will
be
developed
for
geomechanical
monitoring
activities
that
are
either
in
a
developmental
stage
or
not
routinely
performed.
These
plans
will
include
or
reference
the
appropriate
procedures
to
ensure
that
all
necessary
steps
to
complete
the
activity
are
carried
out
and
will
detail
specific
plans
that
describe
instrument
characteristics,
locations,
procedures,
etc.
These
activities
may
include
the
installation
and
monitoring
of
new
instrument
types
to
evaluate
their
adequacy
for
use
in
salt.
Changes
to
the
remote
monitoring
equipment
and
software
routines
will
be
documented
in
accordance
with
approved
WIPP
procedures.

3.3
Rock
Mechanics
Proaram
This
program
assesses
the
current
and
future
performance
of
the
underground
facility.
Its
statistical
and
empirical
data
methods
and
numerical
modeling
codes,
modified
for
use
in
salt
rock,
provide
the
process
for
analyzing
data
collected
from
geotechnical
instruments
and
visual
observations.
The
results
follow
approved
WlPP
procedures
and
will
be
published
in
annual
geotechnical
analysis
reports,
or
more
frequently
as
recommended
by
the
cognizant
engineer
or
manager.

This
program
plan
describes
the
general
scope,
methods,
and
program
requirements
of
investigations
and
will
be
updated
periodically
to
reflect
additions
and
changes.

3.3.1
Background
The
Rock
Mechanics
Program
assesses
of
the
performance
of
the
WlPP
design
for
design
validation
and
for
projecting
the
long­
term
behavior
of
the
underground
openings
and
routine
evaluation
of
safety
and
excavation
stability.
From
an
operational
standpoint,
these
assessments
will
allow
the
identification
of
areas
of
potential
instability
and
the
application
of
remedial
actions,
if
necessary.
To
validate
the
adequacy
of
the
facility
design,
field
data
from
geomechanical
instrumentation
will
be
used
to
determine
actual
mechanical
performance
of
the
shafts
and
excavations
at
the
facility
horizon.

Analytical
methods,
such
as
numerical
modeling,
will
be
used
to
determine
the
potential
effects
of
mining
new
excavations,
excavation
sequence,
and
long­
term
behavior
of
the
repository.
The
engineering
performance
of
the
WlPP
host
rock
is
important
to
assess
the
design
of
the
operating
facility
and
its
long­
term
performance.
Of
significance
are
the
time­
dependent
properties
of
the
salt.
Extensive
experimental
work
and
observa­
tions
have
been
used
to
establish
an
appropriate,
constitutive
relationship
for
salt
that
is
used
to
predict
its
in­
situ
mechanical
performance.
These
assessments
will
rely
heavily
on
the
extrapolation
of
in­
situ
instrumentation
data
and
field
observations.

3.3.2
Purpose
10
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
The
Rock
Mechanics
Program
provides
the
capability
to
assess
the
geomechanical
response
of
the
surface
and
underground
facility
due
to
mining
of
the
underground.

3.3.3
Scope
The
activities
associated
with
the
Rock
Mechanics
Program
are
designed
to:

Assess
the
geotechnical
performance
of
the
underground
excavations
Assess
the
effectiveness
of
support
systems
installed
to
control
areas
of
potentially
unstable
ground
Assess
the
appropriateness
of
the
current
mine
design
and
periodically
evaluate
the
criteria
Provide
geotechnical
recommendations
for
the
development
of
mine
design
criteria
based
on
analytical
assessment
of
the
performance
of
the
existing
excavations
and
from
modeling
of
proposed
design
changes
Project
excavation
performance
based
on
new
mining,
ground
control
activities,
and
facility
aging
Predict
the
performance
of
underground
excavations
based
on
instrumentation
data
and
supplemented
by
analytical
studies
Maintain
a
library
of
numerical
modeling
codes
that
include
the
state­
of­
the­
art
understanding
of
salt
rock
mechanics
Provide
recommendations
or
correctivelpreventive
measures
to
underground
operations
personnel
based
on
the
performance
and
expected
usage
of
the
underground
facility
3.3.4
Methods
The
processes
by
which
rock
mechanics
activities
are
completed
may
vary.
Evaluation
of
the
geomechanical
performance
of
the
underground
openings
will
use
numerical
analysis
techniques
commonly
used
in
the
mining
and
civil
engineering
industries.
The
use
of
these
techniques
will
be
governed
by
WlPP
approved
procedures
for
engineering
calculations
and
computer
software
control.

Routine
Activities
The
following
are
routine
activities
of
the
Rock
Mechanics
Program:

11
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
.
Geomechanical
Data
Assessment
­
Assessments
of
the
instrument
data
and
geologic
observations
will
be
performed
periodically
and
reported
in
the
annual
geotechnical
analysis
reports
and
other
more
frequent
topical
reports.
Complete
data
analyses
will
be
performed
at
least
once
a
year.
The
frequency
of
data
analyses
will
be
based
on
the
geotechnical
performance
of
the
excavations
and
their
operational
use.
The
geotechnical
data
will
be
evaluated
to
determine
whether
conditions
exist
which
warrant
closer
or,
possibly,
immediate
attention
from
a
ground
control
standpoint.
Geotechnical
assessments
measure
the
stability
of
the
openings
with
respect
to
operational
safety
and
long­
term
performance.

Support
System
Performance
Evaluation
­
New
support
system
technologies
will
be
evaluated
as
they
become
available
and
will
be
used
as
they
are
proven.
Several
test
sections
of
support
systems
have
been
installed
and
are
being
monitored.
These
systems
are
instrumented
to
monitor
the
performance
of
the
system
components.
This
instrumentation,
in
conjunction
with
nearby
geomechanical
instrumentation,
allows
assessments
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
support
system
to
be
performed.

Numerical
Modeling
­
Material
modeling
codes
estimate
of
the
performance
of
the
salt
rock
material
based
on
the
material
properties
and
loading
conditions
provided
to
the
model.
These
models
can
be
used
to
determine
the
potential
effects
of
mining
new
excavations
on
the
facility
or
the
long­
term
effect
of
an
excavation
on
nearby
openings.
The
accuracy
of
the
models
can
be
improved
by
modifying
the
code
to
more
accurately
represent
the
actual
physical
conditions.
These
modifications
may
include
mesh
refinement
and
the
use
of
input
data
that
more
accurately
describe
the
physical
properties
of
the
host
rock.

Other
Activities
of
the
Rock
Mechanics
Proaram
Test
plans
will
be
developed
for
rock
mechanics
activities
that
are
in
a
developmental
stage
or
are
not
routinely
performed.
These
plans
will
include
or
reference
the
appro­
priate
procedures
to
ensure
that
all
necessary
steps
to
complete
the
activity
are
carried
out
and
will
detail
specific
plans
that
describe
the
activity,
location,
procedure,
etc.

These
activities
may
include
investigations
of
the
geomechanical
effect
of
new
mining
and
mine
design
changes
on
the
performance
of
the
underground
facility
and
subsidence
effects.
These
investigations
may
require
numerical
modeling,
materials
laboratory
testing,
and
field
observations.
The
results
will
be
used
to
incorporate
the
latest
understanding
of
the
host
rock
properties
into
the
modeling
codes
and
analytical
techniques.

3.4Ground
Control
Proqram
12
WIPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
The
Ground
Control
Program
provides
comprehensive
evaluation
of
the
ground
conditions
and
effectiveness
of
installed
support
systems
throughout
the
facility.
The
evaluations
will
be
based
on
visual
observations,
analyses
of
geomechanical
instru­
mentation
data,
fracture
data
acquired
from
observation
boreholes,
and
rockbolt
failure
data.
The
design
of
new
support
systems
will
be
based
on
the
results
of
these
evaluations.

Ground
control
issues
have
been
addressed
since
excavation
began
at
WIPP.
fnitially
only
minor
spalls
were
observed.
However,
as
the
excavations
aged
and
issues
associated
with
the
roof
beam
began
to
develop,
most
of
the
facility
was
pattern­
bolted
with
mechanical
anchor
rockbolts.
Because
these
bolts
provide
a
basically
rigid
support
system,
they
have
a
finite
life
and
supplemental
systems
are
required
in
areas
scheduled
for
decades
of
use.
The
support
systems
must
maintain
many
areas
of
the
underground
accessible
for
the
projected
life
of
the
facility.

The
information
generated
by
this
program
will
be
documented
in
annual
assessment
reports.
Assessment
of
the
performance
of
the
installed
ground
support
systems
are
performed
as
recommended
by
the
cognizant
engineer
or
manager.
The
results
of
these
assessments
will
be
distributed
to
affected
underground
operations,
engineering,
and
safety
manager
sections.

This
program
plan
describes
the
general
scope
of
the
ground
control
activities,
methods,
and
program
requirements,
and
will
be
updated
periodically
to
reflect
additions
and
changes
to
the
program.

3.4.1
Background
The
operating
life
of
sections
of
the
underground
facility
may
extend
to
approximately
fifty
years
from
the
date
of
excavation.
Over
time,
the
strains
associated
with
stress
conditions
around
the
excavation
result
in
degradation
of
the
surrounding
rock.
Safety
concerns
associated
with
deterioration
of
the
roof
necessitate
monitoring,
maintenance,
and
ground
control
mechanisms
to
ensure
safe
working
conditions.
Roof
support
systems
are
currently
in
place
throughout
the
facility;
however,
because
of
creep
closure,
they
may
undergo
severe
stress,
have
a
limited
service
life,
and
require
periodic
replacement.

Many
options
ar6
currently
available
for
ground
control
in
the
mining
industry.
Technologies
used
in
potash
and
salt
mines
are
the
most
applicable
to
WlPP
because
of
the
similar
behavior
of
the
rock.
A
comprehensive
testing
and
evaluation
program
has
been
used
to
determine
which
ground
support
components
and/
or
systems
are
most
applicable
to
specific
project
requirements.
This
program
consists
of
many
aspects
that
include
continuous
visual
inspections
of
the
underground
opening,
extensive
geomechanical
monitoring,
numerical
modeling,
analysis
of
rockbolt
failures,
implementation
of
ground
control
procedures,
and
comprehensive
in­
situ
and
laboratory
testing,
and
evaluation
of
ground
support
components
and
systems.

13
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
The
excavations
vary
in
geometry,
geology,
age,
and
operational
use.
These
differences
affect
the
selection
of
ground
control
measures,
but
the
ability
of
the
salt
to
creep
or
flow
with
time
has
the
greatest
impact
on
selection
of
support
systems.
Salt
creep
exerts
strong
forces,
both
vertical
and
horizontal,
on
any
control
mechanism.
During
the
time
that
the
underground
has
been
active,
a
variety
of
ground
control
issues
have
been
encountered
ranging
from
minor
spalling
to
roof
falls.

3.4.2
Purpose
The
Ground
Control
Program
provides
the
strategies
for
development
and
selection
of
the
most
applicable
and
efficient
means
of
maintaining
and
monitoring
the
ground
conditions
of
the
WIPP
underground
to
ensure
safe
and
operational
conditions.
The
selection
of
ground
control
fixtures
is
in
accordance
with
30
CFR
u
57,
Subpart
B,
"Ground
Control."

3.4.3
Scope
The
program
is
continually
evolving.
Current
associated
activities
include:

Addressing
ground
control
concerns
and
design
and
implementation
of
ground
support
systems
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
installing
and
monitoring
of
small­
scale
and
full­
scale
in­
situ
support
systems
for
evaluation
Identifying
and/
or
developing
new
ground
control
technologies
that
have
application
to
WIPP
conditions
Documenting
and
evaluating
ground
support
system
component
failure
Evaluating
the
effects
of
new
mining
and
mine
design
changes
on
the
effectiveness
of
installed
ground
support
systems,
proposed
installations,
and
the
stability
of
the
excavation
3.4.4
Methods
Thorough
evaluations
of
the
ground
conditions
and
support
system
performance
throughout
the
facility
will
be
performed
annually.
Some
areas
may
be
evaluated
more
frequently
as
conditions
warrant,
These
evaluations
will
provide
information
necessary
to
address
the
near­
term
ground
control
needs
and
for
long­
term
ground
control
planning.

Three
basic
options
are
available
to
address
unstable
ground
conditions:
(I)
support
14
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
the
ground,
(2)
remove
the
ground,
or
(3)
discontinue
access.
The
first
two
options
are
engineering
alternatives
while
the
third
option
is
an
administrative
decision.
The
ground
control
design
criteria
are
based
on
long­
term
objectives,
experience,
performance
of
existing
systems,
laboratory
and
in­
situ
tests
of
selected
ground
control
components
and/
or
systems,
numerical
analysis,
and
site­
specific
geotechnical
data.
These
criteria
may
be
modified
to
accommodate
technological
advances,
geologic
conditions,
or
operational
requirements.

Routine
Activities
Ground
support
systems
will
be
installed
in
accordance
with
approved
written
instructions.
Monitoring
of
the
geotechnical
instruments
that
monitor
the
performance
of
the
support
systems
will
be
performed
routinely
and
carried
out
according
to
approved
WlPP
procedures.

Other
Activities
of
the
Ground
Control
Program
Activities
which
are
in
development,
or
which
are
not
expected
to
be
performed
routinely,
will
be
performed
in
accordance
with
industry
standards
or
individual
program
plans
that
supplement
this
program
plan.

4.0QUALITY
ASSURANCE
The
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
programs
are
governed
by
the
WID
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description.
Steps
to
ensure
quality
will
be
incorporated,
as
needed,
in
the
technical
procedures
used
for
geotechnical
engineering
activities.
The
Geotechnical
Engineering
manger,
or
assigned
designee,
is
responsible
for
developing
and
maintaining
this
program
plan
and
associated
procedures.

4.1
Desian
Control
Items
and
processes
will
be
designed
using
sound
engineering/
scientific
principles
and
appropriate
standards.
Design
work,
including
changes,
will
incorporate
appropriate
requirements
such
as
general
design
criteria
and
design
basis.
Design
interfaces
will
be
identified
and
controlled.
The
adequacy
of
products
will
be
verified
by
individuals
or
groups
other
than
those
who
performed
the
work.
Verification
work
will
be
completed
before
approval
and
implementation
of
the
design.

4.2
Procurement
Procurement
will
be
carried
out
in
accordance
with
the
appropriate
policies
and
procedures.
Technical
requirements
and
services
will
be
developed
and
specified
in
procurement
documents.
If
deemed
necessary,
these
documents
will
require
suppliers
to
have
an
adequate
quality
assurance
program
to
ensure
that
required
characteristics
are
attained.

15
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
4.3
Instructions.
Procedures
and
Drawinas
Quality­
affecting
activities
performed
by,
or
on
behalf
of,
the
geotechnical
engineering
programs
will
be
performed
in
accordance
with
written
plans
or
approved
procedures.
WlPP
general
procedures
will
be
used
for
procurement,
document
control,
and
quality
assurance.

Technical
procedures
will
be
developed
for
routine
quality­
affecting
functions.
The
procedures
will
include
in­
process
and
final
quality
controls
and
documentation
require­
ments.
The
procedures
will
be
as
detailed
as
required
and
include,
when
applicable,
quantitative
or
qualitative
acceptance
criteria
to
determine
that
activities
have
been
satisfactorily
accomplished.
Procedures
will
be
developed
in
accordance
with
existing
WlPP
procedures.

4.4
Document
Control
Documents
that
prescribe
processes,
specify
requirements,
or
establish
design
will
be
prepared,
approved,
issued,
and
controlled.
Controls
will
ensure
that
the
latest
approved
versions
of
procedures
are
used
in
performing
geotechnical
functions,
and
that
obsolete
materials
are
removed
from
work
areas.
The
Geotechnical
Engineering
manager
will
identify
the
individuals
responsible
for
the
preparation,
review,
and
approval
of
geotechnical
engineering
controlled
documents.

4.5
Control
of
Purchased
Material,
Eauioment.
and
Services
Measures
will
be
taken,
in
accordance
with
current
WlPP
procurement
policies
and
procedures,
to
ensure
that
procured
items
and
services
conform
to
specified
requirements.
These
measures
will
generally
include
one
or
more
of
the
following:

Evaluation
of
the
supplierk
capability
to
provide
items
or
services,
in
accordance
with
requirements,
including
the
previous
record
in
providing
similar
products
or
services
satisfactorily
Evaluation
of
objective
evidence
of
conformance,
such
as
supplier
submittals
Examination
and
testing
of
items
or
services
upon
delivery
If
it
is
determined
that
additional
measures
are
required
to
ensure
quality
in
a
specific
procurement,
additional
steps
may
be
included
in
procurement
documents
and
implemented
by
Geotechnical
Engineering
personnel
and/
or
the
Quality
and
Regulatory
Assurance
Department.
These
additional
assurances
may
include
source
inspection
and
audits
,or
surveillance
at
the
suppliers!
facilities.

16
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
4.6
Identification
and
Control
of
Items
Measures
will
be
used
to
ensure
that
only
correct
and
accepted
items
are
used
at
WIPP.
All
items
that
potentially
affect
the
quality
of
the
geotechnical
engineering
programs
will
be
identified
and
controlled
to
ensure
traceability
and
prevent
the
use
of
incorrect
or
defective
items.

4.7
Test
Control
Testing
or
experimentaI/
monitoring
activities
will
be
in
accordance
with
written
plans
or
procedures
that
contain
the
following
provisions,
as
applicable:

Purpose,
scope
and/
or
definition
Prerequisites
such
as
calibrated
instrumentation
and
supporting
data;
adequate
test
equipment
and
instrumentation,
including
accuracy
requirements;
completeness
of
item
to
be
tested;
suitable
and
controlled
environmental
conditions;
and
provisions
for
data
collection
and
storage
Instructions
for
performing
the
test
Any
mandatory
inspection
and/
or
hold
points
to
be
witnessed
by
WID
or
other
designated
representatives
Acceptance
and
rejection
criteria
Methods
of
documenting
or
recording
test
data
Requirements
for
qualified
personnel
Evaluation
of
test
results
by
authorized
personnel
Test
or
experirnental/
monitoring
procedures
prepared
by
other
project
participants
(e.
g.,
Sandia
National
Laboratories)
used
as
WID
procurement
documents
will
be
reviewed
to
ensure
that
the
documents
are
complete
and
the
tests
described
by
the
documents
are
adequate
to
determine
that
the
involved
equipment,
systems,
or
structures
are
operationally
acceptable.

4.8
Software
Reauirements
Computer
program
procurement,
design,
and
testing
activities
that
effect
quality­
refated
activities
performed
by
WID
or
its
suppliers
will
be
accomplished
in
accordance
with
approved
procedures
(WP
16­
1,
WlPP
Computer
Protection
Plan).

17
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
Test
requirements
and
acceptance
criteria
will
be
specified,
documented,
and
reviewed
and
will
be
based
upon
applicable
software
requirement,
design,
or
other
pertinent
technical
documents.
Required
tests,
including
verification,
hardware
integration,
and
in­
use
tests,
will
be
controlled.

Testing
of
software
will,
at
a
minimum,
verify
the
capability
of
the
computer
program
to
produce
valid
results
for
test
problems
encompassing
the
range
of
permitted
usage
defined
by
the
program
documentation.
Testing
will
also
be
designed
to
identify
and
eliminate
any
serious
defect
that
could,
for
example,
cause
a
crash.

Depending
on
the
complexity
of
the
computer
program
being
tested,
requirements
may
range
from
a
single
test
of
the
completed
computer
program
to
a
series
of
tests
performed
at
various
stages
of
computer
program
development
to
verify
correct
translation
between
stages
and
proper
working
of
individual
modules.
This
will
be
followed
by
an
overall
computer
program
test.

Any
software
to
be
developed
on
site
(by
WID
personnel
or
others)
(i.
e.,
noncommercial
software)
will
follow
the
requirements
of
NQA­
2.7,
and
shalI
include,
at
a
minimum,
a
requirements
document,
a
design
document,
a
validation
and
verification
plan,
a
software
quality
assurance
plan,
a
testing
plan
and
procedures,
a
configuration
management
plan,
and
appropriate
user
manuals.
These
will
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
appropriate
WID
personnel.

Regardless
of
the
number
of
stages
of
testing
performed,
verification
testing
and
validation
will
be
of
sufficient
scope
and
depth
to
establish
that
software
functional
test
requirements
are
satisfied
and
that
the
software
produces
a
valid
result
for
its
intended
function.

4.9
Control
of
Monitorina
and
Data
Collection
EauiDment
Monitoring
and
data
collection
equipment
will
be
controlled
and
calibrated
in
accordance
with
applicable
WlPP
controlled
procedures.
Results
of
calibrations,
maintenance,
and
repair
will
be
documented.
Calibration
records
will
identify
the
reference
standard
and
the
relationship
to
national
standards
or
nationally
accepted
measurement
systems.

Calibration
reports
and
operability
test
data
will
be
maintained
by
Geotechnicat
Engineering.
Any
out­
of­
tolerance
condition
will
be
evaluated
for
potential
impact
on
the
validity
of
data.
Impact
evaluation
and
corrective
actions
will
be
initiated
per
specific
Geotechnical
Engineering
instructions.

18
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
4.10
Handlina.
Storaae.
and
Shiminq
Handling,
storage,
and
shipping
of
items
will
be
coordinated
in
accordance
with
established
procedures
or
other
specific
documents.
Geotechnical
Engineering
is
responsible
for
storing,
handling,
and
shipping
rock
core
and
other
geologic
samples.

4.1
I
Control
of
Nonconformina
Conditionslltems
Conditions
adverse
to
quality
will
be
documented
and
classified
in
regard
to
their
significance.
Corrective
action
will
be
taken
accordingly.

Equipment
that
does
not
conform
to
specified
requirements
will
be
controlled
to
prevent
its
use.
Faulty
items
will
be
tagged
and
segregated.
Repaired
equipment
will
be
subject
to
the
original
acceptance
inspections
and
tests
prior
to
use.

4.12
Corrective
Actions
Conditions
adverse
to
acceptable
quality
will
be
documented
and
reported
in
accordance
with
corrective
action
procedures
and
corrected
as
soon
as
practical.
Immediate
action
will
be
taken
to
control
work,
and
its
results,
performed
under
conditions
adverse
to
acceptable
quality
in
order
to
prevent
degradation
in
quality.

The
Geotechnical
Engineering
manager,
or
designee,
will
investigate
any
deficiencies
in
activities
in
accordance
with
approved
procedures.

4.13
Records
Manauernent
Identification,
preparation,
collection,
storage,
maintenance,
disposition,
and
permanent
storage
of
records
will
be
in
accordance
with
approved
WlPP
procedures.

Generation
of
records
will
accurately
reflect
completed
work
and
facility
conditions
and
will
comply
with
statutory
or
contractual
requirements.
The
Geotechnical
Engineering
Records
and
Inventory
and
Disposition
Schedule
describes
the
classification
and
disposition
for
all
records
generated
by
the
group.
While
in
their
custody,
the
records
will
be
protected
from
loss
and
damage
in
accordance
with
approved
WlPP
procedures
and
they
will
coordinate
with
Project
Records
Services
(PRS)
for
transfer
of
quality
records
to
PRS.
They
are
also
responsible
for
the
Core
Library
in
the
Core
Storage
Building
where
records
will
be
maintained
of
all
Core
Library
activities,
including
additions,
removal
of
any
material,
any
tests
performed
on
the
core,
a
record
of
people
who
examine
the
core
on
site,
and
any
other
alterations
made
to
the
core.

4.14
Audits
and
IndeDendent
Assessments
Planned
periodic
assessments
will
be
conducted
to
measure
management
and
item
19
WlPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
Program
Plan
WP
07­
01,
Rev.
2
quality
and
process
effectiveness,
and
to
promote
improvement.
The
organization
performing
independent
assessments
will
have
sufficient
authority
and
freedom
to
carry
out
its
responsibilities.
Persons
conducting
assessments
will
be
technically
qualified
and
knowledgeable
of
the
items
and
processes
to
be
assessed.

4.15
Data
Reduction
and
Verification
Computer
programs,
commercial
data
processing
applications,
and
manual
calculations
that
collect
or
manipulate/
reduce
data
will
be
verified.
Verification
must
be
performed
before
the
presentation
of
final
results
or
their
use
in
subsequent
activities.
If
it
becomes
necessary
to
present
or
use
unchecked
results,
transmittals
and
subsequent
calculations
will
be
marked
"preliminary"
until
such
time
that
the
results
are
verified
and
determined
to
be
correct.

,
5.0
REFERENCES
Title
30
CFR
57,
Subpart
B,
"Ground
Control"
Title
40
CFR
1
194,
Section
42,
"Monitoring"
WP
13­
1,
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description
WP
16­
1,
WlPP
Computer
Protection
Plan
20
GIs
FIELD
DATA
SHEET
DATE
3
'%
z
'9
TIME
9'
10
READINGS
BY
FIELDTAG
ENTITY
READING
G
I
S
I
D
C­
G
H­
F
4
­

SKETCH
OF
INSTALLATION
I
F
E
D
VIEW
LOOKING
NORTH
STATION
E520
­
SI841
INSTRUMENT
TYPE
CVPT
READING
DEVICE
SINCO
SERIAL
NUMBER
CHECK
DATE
Y
l
4
9
7
COMMENTS
GIs
FIELD
DATA
SHEET
FIELDTAG
ENTITY
READING
1
GISID
I
SKETCH
OF
INSTALLATION
.
I
STATION
INSTRUMENT
TYPE
,m,

READING
DEVICE
d­,

SERIAL
NUMBER
3
CHECK
DATE
Lf
/;
L
d
/
7
9
COMMENTS
F
E
0
VIEW
LOOKING
NORTH
GIs
FIELD
DATA
SHEET
SKETCH
OF
INSTALLATION
:
T
1
F
E
0
C
~

VIEW
LOOKING
NORTH
STATION
E520
­
S3717
INSTRUMENT
TYPE
CVPT
READING
DEVICE
SINCO
SERIAL
NUMBER
3
3
a
g
CHECK
DATE
2
0
9
9
COMMENTS
Prevj
o
u
v
S1688
GIs
FIELD
DATA
SHEET
DATE
3
fJA
f9?
TIME
9
:o/
READINGS
BY
1
I
.

SKETCH
OF
INSTALLATION
a
VIEW
LOOKING
NORTH
E520
51758
­
STATION
INSTRUMENT
TYPE
.2.

READING
DEVICE
.SfNCO.

SERIAL
NUMBER
3
3
2
f
CHECK
DATE
COMMENTS
4
/a
O
l
'
i
7
E520
51758
­
STATION
INSTRUMENT
TYPE
.2.

READING
DEVICE
.SfNCO.

SERIAL
NUMBER
3
3
2
f
CHECK
DATE
COMMENTS
4
/a
O
l
'
i
7
SKETCH
OF
INSTALLATION
4
H
A
F
E
D
E520
­
SI802
STATION
INSTRUMENT
TYPE
CVPT
READING
DEVICE
SINCO
SERIAL
NUMBER
3318
CHECK
DATE
q
/u
/7
9
Previouslv
SI775
COMMENTS
VIEW
LOOKING
N
Q
B
3
.
GIs
FIELD
DATA
SHEET
DATE
3fDzI*
TIME
9
:
/o
READINGS
BY
dl%
khhbi
FIELDTAG
ENTITY
READING
GISID
SKETCH
OF
INSTALLATION
;

F
E
D
VIEW
LOOKING
.NORTH
STATION
F520
­
SI841
INSTRUMENT
TYPE
m,

READING
DEVICE
SERIAL
NUMBER
3
3
1
8
CHECK
DATE
5/
/2
0
/9
?

COMMENTS
CVPT
FIELD
DATA
CHECKPRINT
DATE
TIME
GlSlD
FEET
INCHES
DIAL
W99­
08:
47
3/
22/
99
08:
47
3/
22/
99
08:
47
3122199
08:
47
3/
22/
99
0853
3/
22/
9?
3
0853
3
m
9
0857'

3/
22/
99
0857"

3/
22/
99
09:
Ol
3/
22/
99
09:
Ol
3/
22/
99
09:
Ol
3/
22/
99
09:
Ol
3/
2z99
rn­
06
­

Y22m
09m
37zm9
09:
m
3/
22/
99
09:
m
16505
16504"

16921
16922
16944
­

16729
1673
1
16728
16665
16346
16760
'

16725­

16739
16740
16742
16741'

Y6785­

16344
16726
m727
10
10
31
31
11
c
10
38
11
l&

30
­10
?l­

10­

10
I'

30^

10
lt3
30
=

10
11
­
16733
­­.
11
2
10
2
­

0
O
C
10
8­

8
8
.>

6
4
=

4
6,

10
6'

10
8*

6&

6.

2
4
­
0.168
.

t.
320
1.240
t.
843
0162
'

1.037
0.118
1.153
0.265
1.163
1.117
T.
562
t
959
1.528
0.771
t
.834
1.011
0.942­

Q­
1
€lo*

€k37lS
1.259
I
CVPT
FIELD
DATA
CHECKPRINT
DATE
TIME
GiSlD
FEET
INCHES
DIAL
3/
22/
99
09:
lO
3/
22/
99
09:
lO
3/
22m­
09:
lO
3/
22199­
09:
14
3/
22/
99­­
09r14
3m99
0977
3/
22/
99
09:
17
3/
22/
94
09:
19
m
9
9
0920
v
m
9
0920
W
9
9
09:
21
W
9
9
09:
23
J22199
09:
25
1/
22/
99
09~
26
122/
99
09128
m
9
9
0929
122/
99
09:
30
1W99
09:
30
122199
09:
30
m
9
09:
35
09%
16735
­­
16%

16648­

­I6647
16744
16746
16­
372
16886
16957
16885
16884
16883
16882
16881
18203
18217
18218
18220
18204
182l1
30
11
11
30
.
11­

10
11
1?

31
.
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
4
4
2
10
2
10
4
2
2
10
10
6
4
4
2
4
.

10
10
8
6
0.076
0.368
1.662
t.
159
0225
0.721
0.777
0.638
0.188
0.016
1.734
0.656
0.493
0.898
0.237
1.303
0.719
0.248
0.666
0.974
I
1.978
CVPT
FIELD
DATA
CHECKPRINT
3122199
m36
3122199
0959
3/
22lW
09:
39
3/
22/
99
09:
39
3/
22/
99
09:
39
3/
22/
99
09x3
3WW
09x3
3/
22/
99
09:
47
3/
22/
99
09:
47
3/
22/
99
09:
47
DATE
TIME
GlSlD
FEET
INCHES
DIAL
3/
22199
0947
.3m99
09:
s
322199
0953
­

%22/
99
09:
m
w
9
9
09:
s
3/
p199
09:
s
m
9
9
09:
s
.3/
22/
99
10:
05
3/
22/
99
10:
05
3/
22199
10:
07
18212
'a
31
18213
182f4'

18215
18216
18201.

18202
18205
18206
18207
38208
*

1
8209
*

18210
18197
'

181
99.

78198'

18200
18195
18196
I81
94­

18190
'
121,

13*

31
­

12
1
2%

3
Z
y
12
k
1
2
3f'
­

12
12
30
­

?T
3
P
­72'

t2'

12h
31
*

­12
1
11
6
2
0
2
10
2
'

a
4­

6
6
8
6
10
*e
.2
'

4
u
8
'

10
0
2
10
4.737
1.663
i
­0.281
4
0.217
0r328
1.610
t.
769
0.520
'

0.748
0.193
0.478
t
­438
0.940
0.347
*

o..!
ju6'

­+:
907'
.

1.095
'

0.652
0.497
0.485
0.285
l
CVPT
FIELD
DATA
CHECKPRINT
DATE
TIME
GlSlD
FEET
INCHES
DIAL
I
3m99
10:
09
3/
22/
99
10:
09
3/
22/
99
10:
14
3/
22/
99
10:
14
3/
22/
99
10:
14
3/
22/
99
10:
14
3/
22/
99
10:
19
m
9
9
10:
19
w
9
9
10:
19
V22/
99
10:
28
1122/
99
10128
/22199
10:
30
/22f99
10:
30
122199
10:
42
122/
99
10:
43
tw99
lo:&

122199
lo:&

3/
22199
10:
M
3/
22/
99
1050
3/
22/
99
1051
3/
22/
99
10153
18191
18193
165%

16555
16947
a
16948
16492
16493
16945
16497
16797
16629
16512
16674
16877
16876
16451
16965
16874
16873
18240
12
12
9
9
32
.
32
9
9
.

31
10
a
30­

10
31
10
10
10
30
10
12
10
10
0
2
8
.

10
2
2
1
0.

4
­

6
2
8
8
­

2
0
4
10
8
8
0
a
2
0.829
0.626
0.753
1.833
t.
282
1.379
0.421
I
1.647
1.360
0.753
1.243
1.035
0.420
1.126
1.795
0.61
3
7.780
0.078
1.986
0.255
1
.ai
I
d
I
C
­
CVPT
FIELD
DATA
CHECKPRINT
IDATE
TIME
GlSlD
FEET
INCHES
DIAL
I
3/
22/
99
1053
3/
22/
98
1056
3/
22/
99
1057
3/
22/
99
1057
3/
22/
99
1057
3/
23L99­­
09141
3/
23/
99
09:
43
3/
23/
99
09:
43
3/
23/
99
09:
43
3/
23/
99
09:
43
3/
23/
99
10:
40
3/
23/
99
10:
40
3/
23/
99
10:
40
3/
23/
99
10:
40
3/
23/
99
10:
40
3/
23(
99
10:
40
3/
23/
99
1050
3/
23/
99
10:
50
3/
23/
99
1050
3/
23/
99
1053
16987
16490
16738
16736
.

16737
18287
18284
18285
t
1
8286
18249
18326
18282
181
45
18247
1
8248
18280
18142
1
a277
30
10
10
10
11
la­
'

18
*

18
'

18
'

24
19
19
23'

24
­

25
­.

19
19
19
24
18
6
2
8:

6
1
6
0
a
.

8
10
4
4.­

4
6
6.

2
2
0
0
2
2
0.421
1.167
0.066
1.021
1.165
1.026
1.71
7
1.469
0.234
1.209
0.576
1.177
0.170
0.635
0.176
1.110
0.545
0.877
0.043
1
.ow
Date:
3/
24/
99
Checkprint#
1
Time:
9:
13
AM
Records
Printed:
104
Checked
By
/L­
4
I
I
r
I
1
I
I
I
­I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DOEITWIPP
98­
3
118
Geotechnical
Analysis
Report
for
July
1996
­
June
1997
September
1998
Y
Y
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
mE3
WP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
1
1
i
i
i
1
1
i
Table
of
Contents
List
of
Tables
;
.............
iv
List
of
Figures
v
1.0
Introdmion
.....................
:
................................................................................................
1­
1
1.1
Location
and
Description
........................................................................................
1­
1
1.3
Development
Status
................................................................................................
14
1.4
Purpose
and
Scope
of
Geomechanical­
Monitoring
Program
..................................
1­
6
1.4.1
Instrumentation
...........................................................................................
1­
6
1.4.2
Data
Acquisition
..........................................................................................
1­
6
1.4.3
Data
Evaluation
...........................................................................................
1­
8
1.4.4.
Data
Errors
..................................................................................................
1­
9
2.0
Geology
2­
1
2.1
Regional
Stratigraphy
..............................................................................................
2.1
2.1.1
Castile
Formation
..........................................................................................
2­
1
2.1.2
Salado
Formation
..........................................................................................
2­
3
2.1.3
Rustler
Formation
..........................................................................................
2­
3
2.1.4
Dewey
Lake
Redbeds
....................................................................................
2.3
2.1.5
Dockum
Group
..............................................................................................
2­
4
2.1.6
Gatuiia
Formation.
Mescalero
Caliche.
and
Surficial
Sediments
..................
2­
4
Underground
Facility
Stratigraphy
.........................................................................
2­
5
2.2.
I
Disposal
Horizon
Stratigraphy
......................................................................
2­
5
Performance
of
Shafts
and
Keys
......................................................................................
3­
1
3.1
Salt
Handling
Shaft
.................................................................................................
3­
1
3.1
.
1
Shaft
Performance
.......................................................................................
3­
1
3.1.2
Instrumentation
...........................................................................................
3­
1
3.2
Waste
Shaft
.............................................................................................................
3­
5
3.2.1
Shaft
Performance
.......................................................................................
3­
5
3.3
Exhaust
Shaft
..........................................................................................................
3­
9
3.3.1
Shaft
Performance
.....................................................................................
3­
11
3.3.2
Instrumentation
.........................................................................................
3­
11
Air
Intake
Shaft
.....................................................................................................
3­
11
....................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................

1.2
Mission
....................................................................................................................
1
4
..

............................................................................................................................

2.2
2.2.2
Experimental
Area
Stratigraphy
....................................................................
2­
7
3.0
3.2.2
Instrumentation
...........................................................................................
3­
5
3.4
i
4.0
5
.
0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
3.4.1
Shaft
Performance
.....................................................................................
3­
15
3.4.2
Instrumentation
.........................................................................................
3­
15
Performance
of
Shaft
Stations
..........................................................................................
4­
1
4.1
Salt
Handiing
Shaft
Station
.....................................................................................
4­
1
4
.
I
.
1
Modifications
to
Excavation
.......................................................................
4­
1
4.1.2
Instrumentation
...........................................................................................
4­
1
Waste
Shaft
Station
.................................................................................................
4­
5
4.2.1
Modifications
to
Excavation
.......................................................................
4­
5
4.2.2
Instrumentatiop
...........................................................................................
4­
7
Performance
of
Access
Drifts
...........................................................................................
5­
1
5.1
Modificationshlaintenance
.....................................................................................
5­
1
5.2
Instrumentation
.......................................................................................................
5­
1
5.2.
I
Borehole
Extensometers
..............................................................................
5­
1
5.2.2
Convergence
Points
.....................................................................................
5­
4
5.3
Excavation
Performance
.........................................................................................
5
4
5.4
Analysis
of
Convergence
Data
................................................................................
5­
4
Performance
of
Northern
Experimental
Area
..................................................................
6­
1
6.1
ModificationsNaintenance
.....................................................................................
6­
1
6.2
Instrumentation
.......................................................................................................
6­
1
6.2.
I
Borehole
Extensometers
..............................................................................
6­
1
6.2.2
Convergence
Points
.....................................................................................
6­
1
6.2.3
Wire
Convergence
Meters
..........................................................
......._.....
....
6­
3
6.3
Excavation
Performance
.........................................................................................
6­
3
6.4
Performance
of
Waste
Disposal
Area
......................................................................­......
~7
­~

7.1
Modifications
to
Excavations
.............................................................................
­
....
7­
1
7.2
Instrumentation
.......................................................................................................
7­
2
7.3
Excavation
Performance
.........................................................................................
7­
2
7.4
Analysis
of
Convergence
Data
................................................................................
7­
5
4.2
Analysis
of
Convergence
Data
................................................................
­
...............
6­
3
Geosciences
Program
.......................................................................................................
8­
1
8.1
Borehole
Inspections
...............................................................................................
8­
1
Geologic
Core
Lo_
gging
...........................................................................................
8­
4
8.2
8.3
Summary
.............................................................................
............................­.......
........­
9­
1
References
and
Bibliography
............................................................................­............
10­
1
10.1
Cited
References
...................................................................................................
10­
1
Geologic
and
Fracture
Mapping
of
Excavation
Surfaces
.......................
e._.­
............
8­
3
..
10.2
Selected
Bibliography
...
...
.
.
.
.
...
.
Q
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
....
.
.
.
.
..
.
...
.
.
10­
3
Appendices:
Appendix
A
­
Corrected
Tables
of
Separation
and
Offset
in
Observation
Boreholes
for
the
1995­
1996
Reporting
Period
...
111
I
.
0
Introduction
This
Geotechnical
Analysis
Report
(GAR)
interprets
and
presents
the
geotechnical
data
from
the
underground
excavations
at
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(WIPP).
The
data,
used
to
characterize
conditions,
assess
design
assumptions,
and
clarify
and
evaluate
the
performance
of
the
underground
excavations
during
operations,
are
obtained
as
part
of
a
regular
monitoring
program.

GARS
have
been
available
to
the
public
since
1983.
During
the
Site
and
Preliminary
Design
Validation
(SPDV)
Program,
the
architectlengineer
for
the
project
produced
these
reports
on
a
quarterly
basis
to
document
the
geomechanical
performance
during
and
immediateiy
after
construction
of
the
underground
facility.
Since
the
completion
of
the
construction
phase
of
the
project
in
1987,
the
reports
have
been
prepared
annually
by
the
management
and
operating
contractor
for
the
facility.
This
report
describes
the
performance
and
conditions
of
selected
areas
from
July
1
,
1996,
to
June
30,
1997.
This
report
is
formatted
into
nine
chapters.
The
remainder
of
Chapter
1.0
provides
background
information
on
the
WIPP
site,
its
mission,
and
the
purpose
and
scope
of
the
geomechanical
monitoring
program.
Chapter
2.0
describes
the
local
and
regional
geology
of
the
WIPP
site.
Chapters
3.0
and
4.0
describe
the
geomechanical
instrumentation
located
in
the
facility
shafts
and
shaft
stations
and
the
results
of
the
monitoring
and
interpretation
of
this
instrumentation.
Chapters
5.0,6.0,
and
7.0
present
the
results
of
geomechanical
instrumentation
monitoring
in
the
three
main
portions
of
the
WIPP
underground
facility;
the
Northern
Experimental
Area,
the
access
drifts,
and
the
Waste
Disposal
Area.
Chapter
8.0
discusses
the
activities
included
in
the
Geosciences
Program,
which
includes
geologic
core
mapping,
fracture
mapping,
and
borehole
observations.
The
final
chapter.
Chapter
9.0.
summarizes
the
results
of
the
geomechanical
instrumentation
monitoring
and
compares
the
current
excavation
performance
to
the
system
design
requirements.

1.1
Location
and
Description
The
WIPP
is
located
in
southeastern
New
Mexico,
42
kilometers
(km)
(26
miles)
east
of
Carlsbad
(Figure
1­
1).
The
surface
facilities
were
built
on
the
flat
to
gently
rolling
hiIls
that
are
characteristic
of
the
Los
Medaiios
area.
The
underground
facility
is
being
excavated
approximately
655
meters
(m)
(2,150
feet
[ft])
beneath
the
surface,
in
the
Salado
Formation.
Figure
1­
2
shows
a
plan
view
of
the
underground
facility
at
the
WIPP,
site
as
i
t
is
currently.

1­
1
I'
2
Figure
1­
1
General
Location
of
the
WIPP
Facility
.

1­
2
Portion
o
i
the
Facility
Deactivated
in
September
1996
Not
to
Scale
Figure
1­
2
Schematic
of
Current
Underground
Facility
1­
3
1:
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
'
I
I
I
I
i
!
9.0
Summary
At
the
beginning
of
the
WTPP
project,
criteria
were
developed
that
address
the
requirements
for
the
design
of
the
WPP
(DOE,
1984).
These
criteria,
in
the
form
of
design
requirements,
covered
all
aspects
of
the
mined
facility
and
its
operation
as
a
pilot
plant
for
the
demonstration
of
technical
and
operational
methods
for
permanent
disposal
of
CH­
and
RH­
TRU
waste.
As
the
WIPP
developed
and
the
focus
moved
toward
the
permanent
disposal
of
TRU
waste,
these
design
requirements
were
reassessed
and
replaced
in
1994
by
a
new
set
of
requirements
called
system
design
descriptions
(SDD).
Table
9­
1
shows
the
comparison
of
these
SDDs
with
conditions
actually
observed
in
the
underground
from
July
1996
to
June
1997.

Fracture
development
in
the
roof
is
primarily
caused
by
the
concentration
of
compressive
stresses
in
the
roof
beam
and
is
influenced
by
the
size
and
shape
of
the
excavation
and
the
stratigraphy
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
opening.
Pillar
deformations
induce
lateral
compressive
stresses
into
the
immediate
roof
and
floor.
With
time
the
buildup
of
stress
causes
differential
movement
along
stratigraphic
boundaries.
This
differential
movement
is
identified
as
offsets
in
observation
boreholes
and
is
indicated
by
bending
deformation
in
failed
rockboits.
Large
strains
associated
with
lateral
movements
in
the
roof
can
induce
fracturing
in
the
roof,
which
is
frequently
seen
near
the
ribs.
This
scenario
of
roof
deterioration,
combining
a
buildup
of
compressive
stresses
over
time,
horizontal
offsetting,
and
large
strains
associated
with
lateral
movements,
is
substantiated
by
observations
of
similar
roof
deterioration
in
SPDV
Room
1.
SPDV
Room
2,
and
the
E140
drift
between
S
IO00
and
S
1950.

Major
modifications
to
the
underground
during
this
reporting
period
consisted
of
roof
beam
removal
in
the
E140
drift
in
the
area
of
S
1000
to
S1300.
The
decision
to
remove
the
beam
came
as
a
result
of
operational
scheduling
and
convenience
as
well
as
observations
of
roof
beam
deterioration.
Observations
included
high
expansion
rates
across
clay
G
found
from
extensometer
data,
visual
observation
of
fracturing
within
the
immediate
roof,
and
an
increasing
number
of
bolt
failures
occurring
in
the
area.
Although
the
roof
beam
could
have
been
maintained
through
roof
control
measures,
it
was
also
determined
that
operationally
it
was
an
appropriate
and
convenient
time
to
remove
the
roof
beam.
Data
from
convergence
point
arrays
located
in
the
E
140
drift
between
S
1000
and
S
1300.
which
were
installed
after
the
roof
beam
was
removed,
indicate
the
vertical
closure
rate
after
roof
beam
removal
is
constant
at
approximately
4
c
d
y
r
(
1.5
in/
yr).
Data
from
convergence
point
arrays
in
the
E140
drift
between
S
1300
and
S
1950
show
a
relatively
constant
vertical
closure
rate
since
the
removal
of
the
roof
9­
1
Table
9­
1
Comparison
of
Excavation
Performance
to
System
Design
Descriptions
System
Design
Description
SDD­
UHOO.
Underground
Hoisting.
Section
2.1.2.6.3
Section
2.1.26.4
Section
2.
f.
2.8
hydrostatic
pressure..
.
."
piezometers
located
behind
the
shaft
keys
in
the
Waste
Shaft
and
the
Exhausr
Shaft
remains
below
design
levels.
Piezometers
located
in
the
Salt
Handling
Shaft
were
not
functioning
during
this
reporting
period.
Historic
data
indicate
water
pressures
in
the
Salt
Handling
Shaft
to
be
below
design
levels.
The
Salt
Handling
Shaft
liner
continues
to
resist
water
inflow
into
the
shaft.
Efforts
are
underway
to
determine
if
the
piezometers
in
the
Salt
structurally
sable.
Extensometers
located
in
the
Salt
Handling
Shaft
and
the
Exhaust
Shaft
were
not
functioning
during
this
reporting
period.
Historic
data
indicate
that
closure
of
a11
the
shafts
remains
within
design
"The
key
shall
be
designed
to
retain
the
rock
formation
and
will
be
provided
with
chemical
seal
rings
and
a
water
collection
ring
with
drains
to
prevent
water
from
flowing
down
the
unlined
shaft
from
the
lining
above."­
The
small
amount
of
groundwater
inflow
into
the
shafts
is
effectively
controlled
through
grouting.
Seepage
into
the
Exhaust
Shaft
is
minimal
and
the
source
and
content
of
such
seepage
are
being
characterized
(Intera
1997.
IT,
1997).
I
I
I
I
!

!

j
I
!
i
I
I
i
I
i
i
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table
9­
1
(Continued)
Comparison
of
Excavation
Performance
to
System
Design
Descriptions
System
Design
Description
Requirement
SDD­
AUOO,
Undermound
Facilities
and
Eauipment,
Section
2.2.1.2.
Underground
Disposal
Facilities
`The
underground
waste
disposal
facilities
shall
be
designed
to
provide
space
and
adequate
access
for
the
underground
equipment
and
temporary
storage
space
to
support
underground
operations."

"The
underground
waste
disposal
facilities
shall
be
designed
to
provide
the
2.2*
1.2*
Underground
(Continued)
capability
of
reuieving
the
emplaced
CH
an&
RH
TRU
waste?­

"Entries
and
sub­
entries
to
the
`

underground
disposal
area
and
tht
experimental
areas
shall
be
provided
and
sized
for
personnel
safety,
adequate
air
flow,
and
space
for
equipment."
Section
2.2.1.3,
Underground
Shaft
Pillar
Facilities
;DD­
EMOO.
Environmental
vfonitorinq.
Section
2.2.5.
I
"Geomechaoical
instrumentation
shall
be
provided
to
measure
the
cumulative
deformation
of
the
rock
mass
Comments
Geomechanical
instrument
data
and
visual
observations
indicate
that
the
current
design
provides
adequate
access
and
storage
space.

retrievability
i
s
no
longer
necessary.

Deformation
of
excavation
remains
within
the
required
limits.
The
northern
portion
of
the
underground
from
approximately
NSOO
was
deactivated
during
this
reporting
period
because
the
area
is
no
longer
needed
for
experimental
purposes.
This
area
is
no
longer
accessible.

Approximately
1.5
meters
(5
feet)
of
roof;
up
to
clay
G,
was
removed
in
the
E140drift
from
SI000
to
S1300.

Geotechnical
instrumentation
is
operated
and
maintained
to
meet
this
requirement.
Additional
georechnical
instruments
were
installed
in
various
parts
of
the
WIPP
underground
(including
the
E140
drift.
Room
7.
Panel
1
,
and
SPDV
Room
4)
during
this
reporting
period.

Geotechnical
experts
agree
that
the
monitoring
program
at
the
WIPP
has
been
proven
adequate.
specifically
with
regard
to
the
instrumentation
in
Room
1
.
Panel
1
(DOE.
199
I
b).

beam,
despite
the
fact
that
the
rate
in
some
areas
is
approximately
5
c
d
y
r
(2
idyr).
These
rates
and
visual
observations
indicate
a
more
stable
roof
beam
in
the
E140
drift
between
S
1000
and
S
1950.
In
order
to
monitor
the
response
of
the
new
roof
beam,
14
convergence
point
arrays
have
been
installed
in
the
E140
drift
between
S
1000
and
S
1950
since
the
roof
beam
was
removed.

The
in
situ
performance
of
the
excavations
generally
continues
to
satisfy
the
appropriate
design
criteria.
although
specific
areas
are
being
identified
where
deterioration
resulting
from
aging
9­
3
Attachment
D.
2
Hydrological
Do
cum
en
ts
I
Effective
Date:
3/
12
WP
02­
1
Revision
3
Groundwater
Surveillance
Program
Plan
Cognizant
Section:
Environmental
Monitorina
Approved
By:
Siqnature
on
file
D.
R.
KumD
Cognizant
Department:
ESH
Approved
By:
Signature
on
file
C.
F.
Wu
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1
1
.Q
INTRODUCTION
..............................................................................................

1
2.0
REFERENCES
.................................................................................................

1
3.0
RESPONSIBILITIES
.........................................................................................

3
GSP
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
PLAN
................................................................
4.0
3
4.1
Introduction..
4
4.1
.I
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
Order
5400.1
..........................................
4
4.1.2
4
4.1.3
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
..............................
4
4.1.4
Final
Environmental
Impact
Statement
(FEIS)
Commitments
................
4
4.1.5
Future
Land
Use
Decisions
...................................................................
5
GSP
Quality
Assurance
Requirements
........................................................
5
4.2.2
Quality
Assurance
Program..
.................................................................
5
4.2.3
Design
Control
.......................................................................................
5
4.2.4
Procurement
Document
Control
............................................................
5
4.2.5
Instructions,
Procedures,
and
Drawings
................................................
6
4.2.6
Document
Control
..................................................................................
6
4.2.7
Control
of
Purchased
Material,
Equipment
and
Services
......................
6
4.2.8
Identification
and
Control
of
Items
.........................................................
7
4.2.9
Control
of
Processes
.............................................................................
7
4.2.10
Inspection/
SurveilJance..
...............................................................
7
4.2.11
Test
Control
...................................................................................
8
4.2.12
Control
of
Monitoring
and
Data
Collection
Equipment
..................
8
4.2.13
Handling,
Storage,
and
Shipping
..................................................
8
4.2.14
Inspection
and
Acceptance
Testing
..............................................
a
4.2,15
Control
of
Nonconforming
Conditions
...........................................
9
4.2.16
Corrective
Action
...........................................................................
9
4.2.17
Quality
Assurance
Records
...........................................................
9
4.2.18
Assessments
.................................................................................
.....................................................................................................

DOEEH
01
73T
.........................................................................
;
............

4.2
IO
GSP
WATER
QUALITY
SAMPLING
PLAN
....................................................
10
5.1
Scope
......................................................................................
d
IO
5.1
.I
General
.................................................................................................
7
4
5.2
Surveillance
Well
Construction
..................................................................
13
5.3
Sampling
Proqram
Description
...................................................................
13
5.3.1
Serial
Sampling
....................................................................................
13
5.3.2
Final
Samples
......................................................................................
14
5.4
Groundwater
Pumpinq
and
Sampling
Svstems
..........................................
16
5.5
Pressure
Monitorinq
Svstems
........
..:.
........................................................
16
5.6
Sample
Analvsis
.........................................................................................
5.0
...................
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
.....................................................................................
17
18
19
19
21
5.6.1
Serial
Samples
5.6.2
Rnal
Samples
......................................................................................
................
5.7
5.8
Sample
Preservation,
Trackinq,
Packaging
and
Transportation
Qualitv
Assurance,
Records
Management
and
Document
Control
............

5.9
Calibration
Requirements
...........................................................................

6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
............................................................
WATER
LEVEL
MONlTOR"
PLAN
21
Scope
21
Records
and
Document
Control
.................................................................
.........................................................................................................
................................................................................................
21
htroduction
....................................................................................................
22
Obiective
24
Field
Methods
24
Repodinq
....................................................................................................
25
..........................................................................
25
c
a1
i
brati
on
Requirements.
.............................................................................................
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
1
.o
INTRODUCTION
This
is
the
controlling
document
for
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(WIPP)
Groundwater
Surveillance
Program
(GSP).
The
GSP
is
administered
as
part
of
the
WlPP
Environmental
Monitoring
Program
by
the
Environmental
Monitoring
(EM)
Section
of
the
Environment,
Safety
and
Health
(ES&
H)
Department.

2.0
REFERENCES
DOE
Order
5400.1
,
General
Environmental
Protection
Program
DOEIEH
01
73T,
Environmental
Regulatory
Guide
for
Radiological
Effluent
Monitoring
and
Environmental
Surveillance
Groundwater
Protection
Management
Program
Plan
WP
02­
3,
Environmental
Procedures
Manual
WP
IO­
AD.
WlPP
Maintenance
Administrative
Procedures
Manual
WP
12­
1
,
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Safety
Manual
WP
12­
1
07,
Hazard
Communication
Program
WP
13­
1,
WID
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description
WP
15­
6,
Purchasing
Policies
and
Procedures
Manual
WP
15­
PR,
Records
Management
Plan
3.0
RESPONSIBILITIES
The
overall
organizational
structure
of
the
Westinghouse
WID
is
described
in
Part
I
,
Section
1
of
the
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description
(QAPD).
The
GSP
is
the
responsibility
of
the
ES&
H
Department.
The
GSP
is
conducted
by
the
EM
Section
of
this
department.

The
EM
manager
assumes
responsibility
for
the
overall
design
and
implementation
of
the
GSP
including
the
following
areas:

0
Development
and
approval
of
specific
procedures
for
€he
conduct
of
all
GSP
activities.

1
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
0
0
Establishment
of
minimum
qualification
criteria
and
training
requirements
for
all
program
personnel.
Review
and
approval
of
programmatic
reports.

0
Oversight
of
appropriate
levels
of
cooperation
and
consultation
between
the
EM
Section
and
the
state
of
New
Mexico
regarding
environmental
monitoring.

1
Preparation
of
the
QA
section
of
the
GSP
Plan.

The
EM
manager
and
staff
are
responsible
for
achieving
and
maintaining
quality
in
the
GSP.
Job
descriptions
will
be
maintained
for
the
EM
manager,
professional,
technical,
and
administrative
staff
positions.
All
GSP
data
shall
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
EM
manager,
or
designee,
prior
to
release.

The
EM
manager
appoints
a
GSP
Team
Leader
(TL),
assigning
the
following
responsibilities
to
the
TL:

0
Direct
GSP
per
written
approved
procedures.

I]
Initiate
review
of
programmatic
plans
and
procedures.

0
Review
and
evaluate
sample
data.

0
Prepare
and
review
programmatic
reports.

0
Assure
that
appropriate
samples
are
collected
and
analyzed.

I]
Assure
that
adequate
technical
support
is
provided
to
the
Quality
and
Regulatory
Assurance
(Q&
RA)
Department,
when
required
during
audits
of
vendor
facilities.

The
EM
manager
designates
one
or
more
scientists,
engineers,
or
technicians
who
will
be
responsible
for
the
following
items:

Collection
and
subsequent
distribution
of
samples.

Preparation
and
maintenance
of
appropriate
data
sheets
and
sample
tracking
documentation.

Monitoring
of
equipment
operability
status.

Reporting
of
equipment
malfunctions.

Reporting
of
nonconformance
to
the
TL
or
EM
manager.

2
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
0
Overseeing
of
quality
control
checks
of
data.

0
Conducting
field
activities
in
accordance
with
written
procedures.

The
Q&
RA
manager
provides
independent
oversight
of
the
GSP,
via
the
assigned
cognizant
Q&
RA
engineer,
to
verify
that
quality
objectives
are
defined
and
achieved.
The
Q&
RA
manager
ensures
objective,
independent
assessments
of
GSP
quality
performance.
The
Q&
J#
manager
has
been
delegated
authority
and
given
organizational
freedom
by
the
WID
General
Manager
to
access
work
areas,
identify
quality
problems,
initiate
or
recommend
corrective
actions,
verify
implementation
of
corrective
actions,
and
ensure
that
work
is
controlled
or
stopped
until
adequate
disposition
of
an
unsatisfactory
condition
has
been
implemented.

The
EM
manager
assures
that
basic
qualifications
for
GSP
personnel
are
carried
out
in
accordance
with
Section
2
of
the
QAPD.

The
EM
manager
assures
that
position
descriptions
for
assigned
GSP
personnel
are
adequately
prepared.
Each
position
description
will
include
position
purpose,
principal
responsibilities,
nature
of
work,
and
scope.

The
EM
manager
andlor
TL
assures
that
training
is
performed
on
an
individual
basis
to
maintain
an
acceptable
level
of
proficiency
by
all
new
or
temporary
GSP
staff
and
by
all
permanent
GSP
staff.

New
GSP
employees
are
required
to
review
pertinent
program
documentation,
become
familiar
with
applicable
procedures,
and
complete
appropriate
qualifications
prior
to
undertaking
any
unsupervised
GSP
task,
To
become
qualified
to
perform
a
specific
task
or
series
of
tasks,
an
employee
must
demonstrate
subject
knowledge
and
practical
skills
and
become
certified
in
performing
the
task(
s)
by
a
board­
certified
subject
matter
expert
(SME).
Employees
who
have
not
completed
the
appropriate
qualification
card
will
not
be
allowed
to
conduct
unsupervised
GSP
activities.

The
EM
manager,
TL,
or
task
SME
may
determine
the
need
for
retraining
of
GSP
personnel.
Retraining
may
be
noted
by
Q&
RA
during
any
sur%
eillance
or
audit
or
during
a
periodic
review
initiated
by
the
EM
manager,
TL,
or
SME.

The
EM
manager
assures
that
documents
detailing
all
staff
training
are
current
and
properly
filed.
Copies
of
training
records
shall
be
on
file
in
the
WID
Technical
Training
Sect
ion.

3
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
4.0
GSP
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
PLAN
4.1
Introduction
This
section
is
the
quality
assurance
(QA)
plan
for
the
WIPP
GSP.
The
objective
of
this
QA
plan
is
to
establish
the
specific
QA
requirements
associated
with
the
GSP.
The
GSP
currently
consists
of
two
activities:
the
Water
Quality
Sampling
Program
(WQSP)
and
the
Water
Level
Monitoring
Program
(WLMP).
Technical
implementation
of
each
specific
activity
is
controlled
by
an
individual
program
plan
and
unique
operating
procedures.
The
GSP
provides
a
mechanism
for
addressing
the
following:

4.1.1
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
Order
5400.1
Chapter
3
of
the
DOE
Order
5400.1,
General
Environmental
Protection
Program,
states
that
I
'
...
all
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
sites
will
conduct
a
groundwater
protection
management
program."
The
order
requires
each
ui)
E
site
to
provide
for
the
design
and
implementation
of
a
groundwater
monitoring
effort
that
supports
resource
management
and
complies
with
applicable
environmental
laws
and
regulations.

4.1.2
DOE/
EH
0173T
DOE/
EH
01
73T,
Environmental
Regulatory
Guide
for
Radiological
Effluent
Monitoring
and
Environmental
Surveillance,
states
that:

It
is
the
policy
of
DOE
to
conduct
effluent
monitoring
and
environmental
surveillance
programs
that
are
adequate
to
determine
whether
the
public
and
the
environment
are
adequately
protected
during
DOE
operations
and
whether
operations
are
in
compliance
with
DOE
and
other
applicable
Federal,
State,
and
local
radiation
standards
and
requirements.
It
is
also
DOE
policy
that
Departmental
monitoring
and
surveillance
programs
be
capable
of
detecting
and
quantifying
unplanned
releases
and
meet
high
standards
of
quality
and
credibility.
It
is
DOE'S
objective
that
all
DOE
operations
properly
and
accurately
measure
radionuclides
in
their
effluent
and
in
ambient
environmental
media.

4.1.3
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)

By
virtue
of
a
Groundwater
Monitoring
Waiver,
prepared
under
40
CFR
265,
the
WlPP
Project
is
not
required
to
monitor
groundwater
to
comply
with
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
RCRA.
The
WlPP
GSP
provides
a
basis
for
future
compliance
to
the
RCRA,
as
well
as
any
other
groundwater
protection­
related
regulations,
should
the
need
arise.

4
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
4.1.4
Final
Environmental
Impact
Statement
(FEIS)
Commitments
Section
5.2.2
of
the
FEIS
states
that
"...
long­
term
groundwater
sampling
and
water
level
monitoring
will
be
conducted
as
part
of
the
WlPP
Environmental
Monitoring
Program."

4.1.5
Future
Land
Use
Decisions
Data
collected
from
the
program
will
aid
in
making
future
groundwater­
land
use
decisions
(Le.,
designing
long
term
and
passive
institutional
controls
for
the
site).

This
QA
plan
is
driven
by,
and
is
supplemental
to,
both
the
WID
QAPD,
WP
13­
1,
and
implementing
WlPP
Q&
RA
procedures.

4.2
GSP
Qualitv
Assurance
Requirements
The
following
specific
Q&
RA
requirements
are
unique
to
the
GSP.

4.2.2
Quality
Assurance
Program
This
plan
is
governed
by
the
following
documents:
WP
13­
1,
WID
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description;
and
WP
02­
3,
Environmental
Procedures
Manual.
Steps
to
ensure
quality
are
incorporated,
as
needed,
in
the
technical
procedures
used
for
groundwater
surveillance
activities.
The
EM
manager
or
assigned
designee
is
responsible
for
developing
and
maintaining
this
QA
plan
and
groundwater
surveillance
procedures.

In
accordance
with
the
WID
QAPD,
Part
I,
Section
1,
groundwater
surveillance
data
activities
are
classified
as
Quality
Code
11.

4.2.3
Design
Control
The
design
control
requirements
used
by
Westinghouse
at
the
WID
are
described
in
Part
11,
Section
6
of
the
QAPD.
The
GSP
will
adhere
to
all
applicable
portions
of
these
requirements
when
performing
design
activities.

4.2.4
Procurement
Document
Control
Procurement
is
carried
out
in
accordance
with
WID
procurement
policies
and
procedures,
as
outlined
in
Part
I
I
,
Section
7
of
the
QAPD,
and
WP
15­
6,
Purchasing
Policies
and
Procedures
Manual.
Both
documents
require
specification
of
a
quality
code
and
design
class
and
concurrence
by
the
Q&
F!
A
Department
with
procurement
documents,
Technical
requirements
for
procured
items
and
services
are
developed
and
specified
in
procurement
documents.
the
required
characteristics,
procurement
adequate
QA
program.
If
deemed
necessary
to
ensure
attainment
of
documents
may
require
suppliers
to
have
an
5
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
4.2.5
Instructions,
Procedures,
and
Drawings
Provisions
and
responsibilities
for
the
preparation
and
use
of
instructions
and
procedures
at
the
WIPP
are
outlined
in
Part
II,
Section
4
of
the
QAPD.
Quality­
affecting
activities
performed
by
or
on
behalf
of
groundwater
surveillance
are
required
to
be
performed
in
accordance
with
documented
and
approved
procedures.

Technical
procedures
have
been
developed
for
each
quality­
affecting
function
performed
for
groundwater
surveillance.
The
technical
procedures
unique
to
the
GSP
are
contained
in
the
procedures
sectien
of
this
manual.
The
procedures
are
as
detailed
as
required
and
include,
when
applicable,
quantitative
or
qualitative
acceptance
criteria
to
determine
that
activities
have
been
satisfactorily
accomplished.

Procedure
requirements
are
in
accordance
with
Section
4
of
WP
13­
1.
Procedures
will
be
prepared
in
accordance
with
applicable
technical
writer's
guides.

4.2.6
Document
Control
Requirements
for
the
control
of
documents
are
outlined
in
Part
I
i
,
Section
4
of
the
WID
QAPD.
Controls
ensure
that
the
latest
approved
versions
of
procedures
are
used
in
performing
groundwater
surveillance
functions
and
that
obsolete
materials
are
removed
from
work
areas.

4.2.7
Control
of
Purchased
Material,
Equipment
and
Services
WlPP
policy
requirements
and
associated
responsibilities
for
the
control
of
purchased
material,
equipment,
and
services
are
outlined
in
Part
II,
Section
7
of
the
QAPD.
In
accordance
with
current
WlPP
procurement
policies
and
procedures,
measures
will
be
taken
to
ensure
that
procured
items
and
services
conform
to
specified
requirements.
These
measures
will
include
one
or
more
of
the
following:

I]
An
evaluation
of
the
supplier's
capability
to
provide
items
or
services
in
accordance
with
the
requirements,
including
the
history
of
providing
similar
products
or
services
satisfactorily.

[I
An
evaluation
of
objective
evidence
of
conformance,
such
as
supplier
submittal
(i.
e.,
QA
plan).

[I
An
examination
and
testing
of
items
or
services
upon
delivery.

If
it
is
determined
that
additional
measures
are
required
to
ensure
quality
in
a
specific
procurement,
additional
steps
may
be
provided
in
procurement
documents
and
implemented
by
groundwater
surveillance
staff
andlor
the
Q&
RA
Department.
These
additional
assurances
may
include
source
inspection
and
audits
or
surveillance
at
the
6
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
supplier's
facilities.

4.2.8
Identification
and
Control
of
Items
Measures
to
ensure
that
only
correct
and
accepted
items
are
used
at
the
WlPP
are
outlined
in
Part
11,
Section
8
of
the
QAPD.
All
items
that
potentially
affect
the
quality
of
the
GSP
are
uniquely
identified
and
controlled
to
ensure
that
only
accepted
items
are
used.

Equipment
is
administered
in
accordance
with
WP
IO­
AD,
WlPP
Maintenance
Administrative
Procedures
Manual.
Calibration
reports
test
data
are
maintained
by
the
EM
Department.
Any
"out­
of­
tolerance"
condition
is
evaluated
for
potential
impact
on
the
validity
of
data.
Impact
evaluation
and
corrective
actions
are
initiated
per
specific
GSP
instructions.

4.2.9
Control
of
Processes
All
process
control
requirements
of
the
QAPD
are
met
by
the
GSP.

4.2.1
0
JnspectionlSurveillance
Inspection
and
surveillance
activities
are
conducted
as
outlined
in
Part
It,
Section
10
of
the
QAPD.
The
Q&
RA
Department
is
responsible
for
performing
the
applicable
inspections
and
surveillance
on
the
scope
of
work.
Performance
checks
are
performed
by
groundwater
surveillance
personnel
as
specified
by
the
appropriate
procedures,
and
by
WID
m6trology
laboratory
personnel.
Performance
checks
for
the
GSP
are
designed
to
determine
the
acceptability
of
purchased
items
and
to
assess
degradation
that
occurs
during
use.

4.2.1
1
Test
Control
Part
I
I
,
Section
8
of
the
WID
QAPD
outlines
the
requirements
and
responsibilities
of
the
WID
for
the
control
of
tests.
Tests
to
be
performed
for
the
GSP
fall
into
two
general
categories:
tests
of
items
upon
receipt
and
in
service,
and
operability
checks
of
equipment.

All
tests
are
performed
in
accordance
with
documented
and
approved'
plans
and/
or
procedures.
Testing
or
experirnental/
monitoring
plans
or
procedures
contain
the
following
provisions
as
applicable:

0
Scope
and/
or
definition
or
scope.

El
Prerequisites
such
as
calibrated
instrumentation
and
supporting
data;
adequate
test
equipment
and
instrumentation,
including
accuracy
requirements;
completeness
of
item
to
be
tested;
suitable
and
controlled
7
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEiLLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
environmental
conditions;
and
provisions
for
data
collection
and
storage.

Instructions
for
performing
the
test.

Mandatory
inspection
andlor
hold
points
to
be
witnessed
by
the
WID
or
other
designated
representatives.

Acceptance
and
rejection
criteria.

Methods
of
documenting
or
recording
test
data.

Requirements
for
qualified
personnel.

Evaluation
of
test
results
by
authorized
personnel.

Control
of
Monitoring
and
Data
Collection
Equipment
Monitoring
and
Data
Collection
(M&
BC)
equipment
is
controlled
and
calibrated
according
WP
1
0­
AD,
WIPP
Maintenance
Administrative
Procedures
Manual,
to
ensure
continued
accuracy
of
groundwater
surveillance
data.
Results
of
calibrations,
maintenance,
and
repair
are
documented.
Calibration
records
identify
the
reference
standard
and
the
relationship
to
national
standards
or
nationally
accepted
measurement
systems.
Records
are
maintained
to
track
uses
of
M&
DC
equipment.
If
M&
DC
equipment
is
found
to
be
out
of
tolerance,
the
equipment
is
tagged
and
its
use
ceased
until
corrections
are
made.
An
evaluation
shall
be
approved
by
the
EM
manager
and
corrective
measures
will
be
taken,
as
needed.

4.2.1
3
Handling,
Storage,
and
Shipping
Handling,
storage,
packaging,
and
shipping
of
groundwater
samples
are
controlled
in
accordance
with
WP
10­
AD,
WlPP
Maintenance
Administrative
Procedures
Manual.
Proper
documentation
is
prepared
and
maintained
for
each
sample
to
minimize
damage,
loss,
deterioration,
and
extraneous
exposures.

4.2.14
Inspection
and
Acceptance
Testing
Measures
used
by
the
WID
to
ensure
that
required
inspections
and
tests
performed
are
outlined
in
Part
II,
Section
8
of
the
WID
QAPD.
Controls
are
implemented
in
accordance
with
documented
procedures
to
ensure
that
items
are
not
used
pnor
to
passing
required
inspections
and
tests.
The
status
is
identified
on
the
items
or
on
documents
traceable
to
the
items.
Items
that
have
not
been
accepted
are
identified
as
such
and
stored
separately
from
accepted
items.
The
operating
status
of
equipment
is
identified
on
the
equipment
or
on
the
equipment
list.
Faulty
equipment
is
tagged
and,
if
practicable,
physically
segregated
from
the
work
area.

8
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
4.2.15
Control
of
Nonconforming
Conditions
Part
I
I
,
Section
8
of
the
WID
QAPD
describes
the
system
used
at
the
WlPP
for
ensuring
that
appropriate
measures
are
established
to
control
nonconforming
conditions.
Nonconforming
conditions
connected
to
the
GSP
are
identified
in
and
controlled
by
documented
procedures.
Equipment
that
does
not
conform
to
specified
requirements
is
controlled
to
prevent
use.
The
disposition
of
defective
items
is
documented
on
records
traceable
to
the
affected
items.
Prior
to
final
disposition,
faulty
items
are
tagged
and
segregated.
Repaired
equipment
is
subject
to
the
original
acceptance
inspections
and
tests
prior
to
use.

4.2.16
Corrective
Action
Requirements
for
the
development
and
implementation
of
a
system
to
determine,
document,
and
initiate
appropriate
corrective
actions
after
encountering
conditions
adverse
to
quality
at
the
WlPP
are
outlined
in
Part
I
,
Section
3
of
the
QAPD.
Conditions
adverse
to
acceptable
quality
are
documented
and
reported
in
accordance
with
corrective
action
procedures
and
corrected
as
soon
as
practical.
Immediate
action
will
be
taken
to
control
work
performed
under
conditions
adverse
to
acceptable
quality,
and
its
results,
to
prevent
degradation
in
quality.

The
EM
manager
or
designee
investigates
any
deficiencies
in
groundwater
surveillance
activities
to
determine
if
there
is
an
underlying
root
cause.
All
such
actions
are
documented
and
reported
to
the
Q&
RA
Department.

4.2.17
Quality
Assurance
Records
Part
I,
Section
4
of
the
QAPD
outlines
the
policy
used
at
the
WIPP
regarding
ientification,
preparation,
collection,
storage,
maintenance,
disposition,
and
permanent
storage
of
QA
records.
The
EM
manager
or
designee
is
responsible
for
the
preparation
and
distribution
of
records
in
accordance
with
appropriate
DOE
Orders,
policies,
and
directives.

Records
to
be
generated
in
the
GSP
are
specified
by
procedure.
QA
records
are
identified.
This
is
the
basis
for
the
labeling
of
records
as
"QA"
on
the
EM
Records
Inventory
and
Disposition
Schedule
(RIDS).

QA
records
document
the
results
of
the
GSP
implementing
procedures
and
are
sufficient
io
demonstrate
that
all
quality­
related
aspects
are
valid.
The
records
will
be
identifiable,
legible,
and
retrievable
in
accordance
with
WP
15­
PR,
WID
Records
Management
Plan,
and
QA
record
procedures.

While
in
the
custody
of
the
GSP
group,
the
records
shall
be
stored
in
a
UL
fisted,
one­
hour
fire­
resistant
cabinet.
The
EM
manager
shall
coordinate
with
WlPP
Project
Records
Services
(PRS)
for
both
periodic
and
perpetual
transfer
of
records
to
PRS.

9
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
4.2.1
8
Assessments
Provisions
and
responsibilities
for
assessments
are
outlined
in
Part
i
l
l
,
Sections
9
and
'1
0,
of
the
QAPD.
Periodic,
independent
assessments
of
the
GSP
shall
be
scheduled,
planned,
and
performed
to
verify
that
work
is
performed
in
accordance
with
specified
requirements.
The
Independent
Assessment
Section
has
the
responsibility
and
oversight
authority
for
appraising
GSP
activities
for
compliance
with
applicable
environmental
statutes.
Assessment
teams
will
not
include
members
of
the
GSP
staff.
Assessments
are
performed
in
accordance
with
applicable
assessment
procedures.

5.0
GSP
WATER
QUALITY
SAMPLING
PLAN
5.1
S
c
m
e
This
section
of
the
WlPP
GSP
Plan
serves
as
the
controlling
document
for
the
WQSP
The
WQSP
is
a
subprogram
of
the
GSP.

The
WQSP
was
initiated
in
January
1985.
The
objective
of
the
program
is
to
collect
representative
and
reproducible
groundwater
samples
from
water­
bearing
zones
in
the
area
of
the
WlPP
site.
The
purpose
of
the
program
is
to
provide
defensible
data
for
meeting
the
requirements
of
site
characterization,
performance
assessment,
regulatory
compliance,
and
permitting.
A
program
plan
that
defined
the
basic
structure
and
operational
activities
of
the
program
was
initially
developed
by
Colton
and
Morse
(1985).
The
program
plan
was
replaced
in
1987
by
WP
07­
2,
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Water
Quality
Sampling
Manual.
In
1991
the
WQSP
manual
was
replaced
by
WP
02­
1,
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Groundwater
Monitoring
Program
Plan
and
Procedures
Manual
~

5.1
.I
General
From
1984
to
1990,
the
WQSP
was
designed
to
characterize
the
physical
and
chemical
characteristics
of
representative
groundwater
samples
occurring
within
and
immediately
surrounding
the
WlPP
site.
Various
wells
were
serially
sampled,
three
times
each,
to
determine
the
representative
character
of
the
groundwater
present
at
each
location.
Data
collected
were
supplied
to
the
ES&
H
Department
and
used
to
develop
a
baseline
of
water
quality
data
as
part
of
the
Radiological
Baseline
Program.
A
nonradiological
database
was
developed
to
support
the
background
water
quality
characterization
report.
Data
were
also
supplied
to
and
used
by
Sandia
National
Laboratories
(SNL)
for
site
characterization
and
performance
assessment.
By
the
close
of
1990,
the
groundwater
of
interest
had
been
characterized,
and
the
objective
of
the
program
shifted
from
characterization
to
surveillance.

On
October
1,
1988,
the
ES&
H
Department
assumed
responsibility
for
the
WQSP.
Water
quality
sampling
activities
were
coordinated
with
the
Environmental
Monitoring
10
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
Program.

Collection
of
groundwater
quality
data
continues
to
assist
the
DOE
in
meeting
performance
assessment,
regulatory
compliance,
and
permitting
requirements.
The
data
also
provide:

0
Radiological
and
nonradiological
water
quality
input
to
the
WlPP
Environmental
Monitoring
Program.

I]
A
means
to
comply
with
future
groundwater
inventory
and
monitoring
regulations.

0
Input
for
making
land­
use
decisions
(i.
e,,
designing
long­
term
active
and
passive
institutional
controls
for
the
site).

Groundwater
exists
both
above
and
below
the
WIPP
repository,
but
no
hydrologic
continuity
exists
between
the
repository
and
the
groundwater.
Groundwater
below
the
repository
occurring
in
the
sandstones
of
the
Delaware
Mountain
Group
(Powers,
et
al.,
1978)
is
isolated
by
bedded
salt
deposits
in
the
lower
part
of
the
Salado
Formation
and
in
the
underlying
Castile
Formation.
Groundwater
below
the
repository
is
not
being
monitored
as
part
of
this
program.

Groundwater
above
the
repository
is
being
monitored.
Groundwater
exists
in
both
the
Dewey
Lake
Formation
and
the
Rustler
Formation.
Zones
monitored
for
background
characterization
within
the
Rustler
are
the
Culebra
and
the
Magenta
members.
These
zones
appear
to
be
dolomite
units
isolated
from
one
another
by
impermeable
units.
With
the
exception
of
excavated
shafts
at
WIPP,
these
zones
are
isolated
from
the
repository
excavations
by
bedded
salt
deposits
in
the
upper
two
thirds
of
the
Salado
Formation.

Postbackground
surveillance
is
focused
on
the
Culebra
because
it
is
the
primary
flow
path
within
the
Rustler
formation.
Databases
are
maintained
for
the
Magenta
so
that
if
the
need
arises
surveillance
of
the
Magenta
can
be
resumed.

The
Culebra
is
areally
persistent,
but
quantity
and
quality
of
water
va;
y
considerably
from
place
to
place.
The
dolomite
is
vuggy,
fractured,
and
commonly
associated
with
anhydride
(Lambert
and
Mercer,
1977).
The
Culebra
has
a
low
hydraulic
conductivity.
It
is
a
fractured
unit
that
is
best
modeled
as
a
dual­
porosity
media.
Water
yields
are
small
and
saline
(Powers
et
al.,
1978).

The
Magenta
is
finely
crystalline
and
dense.
Like
the
Culebra,
the
Magenta
has
a
low
hydraulic
conductivity
through
fractures
and
contains
limited
amounts
of
poor
quality
water
(Powers
et
al.,
1978).

The
Dewey
Lake
Redbeds
consist
of
orange­
red
silt
stone,
mud
stone,
and
some
11
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
sandstone.
The
Dewey
Lake
Redbeds
do
not
form
an
aquifer,
but
some
permeable
sand
lenses
are
present
and
those
yield
limited
quantities
of
fresh
water
to
a
few
private
wells
in
the
area
around
the
WIPP
site
(Powers
et
al.,
1978).
One
such
sand
lens
has
been
identified
within
the
WlPP
boundary
and
is
scheduled
for
surveillance
as
part
of
the
WQSP.

5.2
Surveillance
Well
Construction
Many
of
the
WIPP
surveillance
wells
were
drilled
and
completed
prior
to
1980.
As
the
WIPP
Project
progressed,
additional
monitoring
wells
were
completed
in
the
vicinity
of
the
site.
Drilling
of
the
bulk
of
WlPP
surveillance
wells
began
in
1976
and
continued
into
1988.

In
general,
all
of
these
wells
were
drilled
as
part
of
the
geologic
site
characterization
and
resource
evaluation
programs.
Most
WlPP
surveillance
wells
were
drilled
and
completed
using
oil
field
techniques.
Surveillance
wells
at
the
site
have
been
completed,
generally,
using
two
types
of
installations.
One
installation
requires
drilling
the
well
to
some
depth
below
the
base
of
the
Culebra
and
then
casing
the
well
to
the
bottom
of
the
hole.
The
interval
of
the
Culebra
or
Magenta
is
then
perforated
to
allow
access
to
the
formation
for
testing
or
sampling
purposes.
The
second
type
of
installation
consists
of
drilling
the
hole
to
a
depth
just
above
the
top
of
the
Culebra,
installing
well
casing
to
the
bottom
of
the
drilled
hole,
and
coring
or
drilling
through
the
Culebra
interval,
leaving
the
Culebra
interval
open
to
the
formation.

These
types
of
well
completions
presented
problems
in
collecting
undisturbed
and
representative
samples
from
the
water­
bearing
units.
The
open­
hole
completions
have,
in
some
cases,
resulted
in
sediments
below
the
CuIebra
being
exposed
in
the
sampling
interval.
In
some
cases,
these
sediments
are
rich
in
halite
or
other
evaporite
minerals,
causing
the
water
chemistry
in
the
well
bore
and
the
water­
bearing
unit
surrounding
the
well
to
be
altered.
Often,
during
drilling
and
completion
of
surveillance
wells,
fluids
containing
fresh
water,
saturated
brine,
and
drilling
fluids
containing
petroleum
products
have
been
introduced
into
the
well
bore.
In
some
cases,
these
fluids
were
left
standing
in
the
well
bore
for
extended
periods
of
time,
resulting
in
contamination
of
the
surrounding
formation
(Crawley
1988).

Standard
oil
field
steel
well
casings
have
been
used
during
completion
of
the
WlPP
surveillance
wells.
This
type
of
casing
is
easily
corroded
by
the
brackish
to
brine
water
found
in
the
WlPP
area.
Based
on
serial
sampling
results,
it
appears
that
the
products
of
well
casing
corrosion
migrate
from
the
well
bore
into
the
formation,
resulting
in
a
halo
or
plume
of
groundwater
with
altered
chemistry
surrounding
the
surveillance
wells.
Obtaining
a
representative
sample
has
required
that
the
surveillance
wells
be
pumped
for
long
periods
of
time
to
remove
the
contamination.

Well
drilling
and
completion
techniques
such
as
those
described
above
are
usually
not
used
for
installation
of
monitoring
wells
employed
in
RCRA
or
sther
groundwater
12
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
sampling
programs,
due
to
the
likelihood
of
aquifer
contamination.
These
practices
required
that
the
WQSP
use
extensive
groundwater
pumping
in
order
to
obtain
uncontaminated
water
samples.

The
difficulty
in
obtaining
representative
groundwater
samples,
due
to
the
design
of
the
wells
used
by
the
WQSP,
necessitated
the
use
of
a
serial
sampling
technique.
Serial
sampling
and
the
associated
equipment
are
discussed
later
in
this
section.

Seven
observation
wells
were
completed
after
the
baseline
was
established
using
EPA
recommended
drilling
methods
and
casing
materials
that
have
the
potentiar
to
meet
RCRA
monitoring
standards.
Six
of
the
wells
were
completed
in
the
Culebra;
one
well
in
the
Dewey
Lake
formation.
Two
years
of
sampling
are
scheduled
prior
to
the
anticipated
receipt
of
waste.
The
data
gathered
from
these
wells
will
be
compared
to
the
existing
database
and
the
existing
background
data
will
be
appended
as
appropriate.

The
configuration
of
the
seven
new
observation
wells
may
well
preclude
the
necessity
to
perform
serial
sampling.
However,
sampling
of
a
portion
of
the
older
surveillance
wells
may
be
necessary
in
years
to
come.
Therefore,
a
discussion
of
serial
sampling
techniques
is
included
in
this
document.

5.3
Samdina
Proaram
Descrbtion
The
WQSP
has
employed
two
types
of
sampling
procedures
at
the
WIPP:
serial
sampling
and
final
sampling.

5.3.1
Serial
Sampling
Serial
sampling
is
the
collection
of
sequential
samples
for
the
purpose
of
determining
when
the
water
chemistry
stabilizes
or
reaches
a
steady
state.
Ideally,
when
the
water
chemistry
stabilizes,
it
is
assumed
that
the
chemistry
is
representative
of
the
native
formation
fluid,
and
a
final
sample
is
collected.
However,
in
reality,
serial
sampling
leads
to
the
collection
of
water
samples
with
reproducible
chemistries
which
may
or
may
not
be
representative
of
the
undisturbed
groundwater.
The
water
samples
may
still
be
impacted
by
well
construction
practices
and
effects
from
the
installation
of
downhole
pumping
and
sampling
equipment.

During
the
background
characterization
phase
of
the
WQSP
serial
sample,
field
parameters
were
monitored
on
a
daily
basis.
After
completion
of
the
background
characterization
phase,
monitoring
of
serial
sample
parameters
was
modified
by
pumping
each
well
for
48
hours
prior
to
the
start
of
serial
sampling
then
comparing
the
serial
sampling
analysis
results
to
the
average
last
day
serial
sample
results
for
previous
sampling
rounds.
A
95
percent
confidence
interval
was
established
for
com
pa
riso
n
standards.

13
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
The
field
analytical
parameters
found
to
be
the
most
useful
in
identifying
a
steady
state
condition
of
the
water
chemistry
include
chloride,
divalent
cations
(hardness),
and
alkalinity,
which
are
analyzed
by
classic
wet
chemistry
bench
methods
(titration).
Totai
iron
has
also
been
found
to
be
a
useful
indicator
and
is
analyzed
using
spectrophotometric
methods.
Other
serial
sampling
parameters
analyzed
in
the
field
include
measurement
of
pH,
Eh,
temperature,
specific
conductance,
and
specific
gravity.
Procedures
for
collection
and
analysis
of
serial
samples
are
processed,
approved,
and
maintained
by
the
site
documentation
process.

5.3.2
Final
Samples
Final
groundwater
samples
are
collected
once
evidence
from
serial
sampling
indicates
that
the
pumped
groundwater
has
reached
a
chemical
steady
state.
Final
samples
are
forwarded
to
a
contract
analytical
laboratory
for
analysis.

Final
samples
are
collected
in
the
appropriate
type
of
container
for
the
specific
analysis
to
be
performed,
For
each
parameter
analyzed,
a
sufficient
volume
of
sample
is
collected
to
satisfy
the
volume
requirements
of
the
analytical
laboratory.
This
includes
an
additional
volume
of
sample
water
necessary
for
maintaining
quality
control
standards.
All
final
samples
are
treated,
handled,
and
preserved
as
required
for
the
specific
type
of
analysis
to
be
performed.
Details
about
sample
collection,
preservation,
and
volumes
required
for
individual
types
of
analyses
are
found
in
the
applicable
procedures
generated,
approved,
and
maintained
by
the
site
documentation
process.

Splits
of
the
final
sample
are
provided
to
oversight
agencies
and
WIPP
stakeholders
as
requested
by
the
DOE.
A
split
of
the
sample
is
also
placed
in
storage
within
the
ES&
H
Environmental
Sample
storage
area
and
held
until
final
reports
from
the
contract
analytical
laboratory
have
been
evaluated
and
approved.
When
the
final
laboratory
report
has
been
approved
the
samples
are
removed
from
storage
and
destroyed.

Detailed
protocols,
in
the
form
of
procedures,
assure
that
samples
are
collected
in
a
consistent
and
repeatable
fashion.
Procedures
applicabie
to
water
quality
sampling
are
generated,
approved,
and
maintained
by
the
site
documentation
process.

The
serial
sampling
process
will
probably
not
be
needed
with
the
wells
completed
specifically
for
water
quality
sampling.
However,
during
the
first
two
years
of
sampling,
the
wells
will
be
serially
sampled
using
an
abbreviated
method.
It
is
anticipated
that
changes
in
the
water
chemistry
from
stagnated
to
representative
will
occur
within
the
first
24
hours
of
the
purging
process.
Whereas,
this
change
usually
occurred
over
a
seven­
day
period
with
the
old
wells.

During
the
first
two
or
three
years
of
sampling,
these
wells
will
be
serially
sampled
with
the
first
sample
being
analyzed
as
soon
as
possible
after
the
pump
is
turned
on
and
daily
there
after
for
a
period
of
four
days
or
until
the
field
parameters
(chloride,
divalent
14
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
cations,
alkalinity
and
iron)
stabilize.
Eh,
pH,
and
conductance
will
be
monitored
continuously
by
using
a
flow
cell
with
ion­
specific
electrodes
and
a
real­
time
readout.
After
two
years
of
sampling
data
have
been
accumulated,
a
decision
will
be
made
to
determine
if
the
serial
sampling
process
can
be
eliminated.
If
serial
sampling
is
removed
from
the
water
quality
sampling
well
protocol,
the
decision
to
collect
samples
will
be
based
on
the
number
of
well
bore
volumes
purged
and
the
results
of
continuous
monitoring
of
temperature
Eh,
pH,
and
conductance.

5.4
Groundwater
PumDina
and
SarnDlina
Svstems
The
water­
bearing
units
at
the
WlPP
are
highly
variable
in
their
ability
to
yield
water
to
surveillance
wells.
The
Culebra,
the
most
transmissive
hydrologic
unit
in
the
WlPP
area,
exhibits
transmissivities
that
range
many
orders
of
magnitude
across
the
site
area
and
has
been
the
primary
focus
of
the
GSP.
The
Magenta
has
a
lower
transmissivity
and
yields
very
small
quantities
of
water
to
wells.
Because
the
water­
yielding
characteristics
of
the
hydrologic
units
at
the
WlPP
are
variable,
different
types
of
pumping
equipment
are
used
during
water
quality
sampling
activities.

The
groundwater
pumping
and
sampling
systems
used
to
collect
a
groundwater
sample
are
designed
to
provide
continuous
and
adequate
production
of
water
so
that
a
representative
groundwater
sample
can
be
obtained.
The
wells
used
for
water
quality
sampling
vary
in
yield,
depth,
and
pumping
lift.
These
factors
affect
the
duration
of
pumping
as
well
as
the
equipment
required
at
each
well.
Based
upon
expected
yields,
the
wells
monitored
at
WlPP
can
be
divided
into
three
categories
according
to
flow
rate:
(1
)
high
flow
rate
of
10
to
25
gallons
per
minute
(gpm);
(2)
medium
flow
rate
or
1
to
10
gpm;
and
(3)
low
flow
rate
of
less
than
1
gpm.

The
high
and
medium
flow
rate
wells
may
use
a
submersible
pump­
packer
assembly.
The
low­
volume
wells
may
require
a
gas­
driven
piston
pump­
packer
assembly.
A
discussion
of
the
different
pump­
packer
equipment
is
provided
below.

The
type
of
pumping
and
sampling
system
to
be
used
in
a
wet1
depends
primarily
on
the
aquifer
characteristics
and
well
construction.
For
example,
if
well
construction
is
such
that
it
yields
contamination
to
the
aquifer
(i.
e.,
metal
casing)
a
packer
is
normally
recommended
to
minimize
purging
time,
If
the
aquifer
yields
adequate
water
to
the
well
to
be
classified
a
high
or
medium
production
well,
a
submersible
electric
pump
may
be
used.
However,
if
the
well
is
completed
with
the
water­
bearing
unit
uncased,
a
gas
piston
pump
may
be
needed
to
minimize
stress
to
the
formation
walls
to
prevent
collapse
of
the
formation.

Wells
that
are
completed
to
water
quality
standards
are
cased
and
screened
through
the
production
interval
with
materials
that
do
not
yield
contamination
to
the
aquifer
or
allow
the
production
interval
to
collapse
under
stress.
An
electric,
submersible
pump
installation
without
the
use
of
a
packer
is
an
acceptable
installation
in
this
instance.
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
The
largest
amount
of
discharge
from
the
submersible
pump
takes
place
from
a
discharge
pipe.
In
addition
to
this
main
discharge
pipe
a
dedicated
nylon
sample
line,
running
parallel
to
the
discharge
pipe,
is
also
used.
Flow
through
the
pipe
is
regulated
on
the
surface
by
a
flow
control
valve
andlor
variable
speed
drive
controller.
Cumulative
flow
is
measured
using
a
totalizing
flow
meter.
Flow
from
the
discharge
pipe
is
routed
to
a
discharge
tank
for
disposal.

The
dedicated
nylon
sampling
line
is
used
to
collect
the
water
sample
that
will
undergo
analysis.
By
using
a
dedicated
nylon
sample
line,
the
water
is
not
contaminated
by
the
metal
discharge
pipe.
The
sample
line
branches
from
the
main
discharge
pipe
a
few
inches
above
the
pump.
Flow
from
the
sample
line
is
routed
into
the
sample
collection
area.
Flow
through
the
sample
collection
line
is
regulated
by
a
flow­
control
valve.
The
sample
line
is
insulated
at
the
surface
to
minimize
temperature
fluctuations.

A
gas­
driven
pump
and
sampling
system
can
be
used
on
any
volume
well.
When
used,
the
pump
intake
is
set
at
a
predetermined
depth
near
or
in
the
production
zone.
The
pumping
rate
is
adjusted
to
maintain
the
water
level
in
the
well
above
the
pump
intake.

The
flow
rate
for
gas
driven
pumps
is
controlled
by
regulating
the
air
pressure
on
the
pump
intake
or
by
a
flow
control
valve.
Water
is
continuously
discharged
into
a
water
storage
tank.
Detailed
protocol
for
assembling,
installing,
and
controlling
pumping
and
sampling
systems
is
found
in
the
procedures
generated,
approved,
and
maintained
by
the
site
documentation
process
5.5
Pressure
Monitorina
Svstems
Regardless
of
which
pump
is
used
when
sampling
a
well
that
was
drilled
for
the
geologic
site
characterization
and
resource
evaluation
program,
a
packer
is
used
to
isolate
the
pump
intake
from
contaminated
well­
bore
fluid
that
exists
in
the
well
above
the
sampling
zone.
If
the
packer
seal
is
not
good,
contaminated
water
from
above
the
packer
can
leak
into
the
formation
water
being
sampled
and
bias
analytical
results.
If
the
packer
has
a
good
seal
the
pressure
above
the
inflated
packer
should
remain
con
st
ant.

Pressure
above
the
packer
is
monitored
using
transducers
and/
or
bubblers
to
verify
that
the
seal
on
the
packer
is
good.
Pressure
below
the
packer
is
monitored
to
ensure
that
water
levels
do
not
fall
below
the
pump
intake.
Periodic
checks
of
the
pressures
are
conducted
during
field
sampling
to
verify
packer
seal
integrity.
These
field
checks
are
recorded
on
Field
Activity
Log
Forms.

Wells
drilled
to
water­
quality
specifications
do
not
require
the
installation
of
a
packer
because
sample
biases
due
to
well
construction
deficiencies
are
not
present.
However,
pressures
will
be
monitored
in
the
formation
to
maintain
water
level
above
the
pump
intake.
Procedures
governing
the
installation
and
use
of
pressure
monitoring
devices
are
generated,
approved,
and
maintained
by
the
site
documentation
process.

16
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
5.6
Sample
Analvsis
The
mobile
field
laboratory
provides
a
work
place
for
conducting
field
sampling
and
analyses.
The
laboratory
is
positioned
near
the
wellhead,
is
climate
controlled,
and
contains
the
necessary
equipment,
reagents,
glassware,
and
deionized
water
for
conducting
the
various
analyses.

Two
types
of
water
samples
are
collected:
serial
samples
and
final
samples.
Serial
samples
are
taken
at
regular
intervals
and
analyzed
in
the
mobile
laboratory
for
various
physical
and
chemical
parameters
(called
field
parameters).
The
serial
sample
data
are
used
to
determine
the
chemical
steady
state
conditions
of
the
groundwater,
as
a
direct
function
of
the
volume
of
the
water
being
pumped
from
the
well.
Interpretation
of
the
serial
sampling
data
enables
the
TL
to
make
a
determination
of
when
steady
state
conditions
are
attained
in
the
pumped
groundwater.

Final
samples
are
collected
when
the
serially
sampled
field
parameters
have
achieved
a
steady
state.
If
one
or
more
of
the
field
parameters
do
not
stabilize,
and
there
is
reason
to
believe
it
will
not,
the
TL
may
choose
to
collect
the
final
sample
regardless
of
this
instability
in
the
field
parameter(
s).

The
objective
of
the
serial
sampling
effort
is
to
obtain
representative
water
samples
in
a
reproducible
manner.
By
definition,
a
representative
groundwater
sample
is
a
sample
of
undisturbed
groundwater.
A
groundwater
sample
is
considered
to
be
representative
of
the
undisturbed
groundwater
only
if
it
is
chemically
identical
to
the
undisturbed
groundwater
(i,
e.,
completely
unaltered
by
the
effects
of
drilling,
postdrilling
processes
and
reactions,
and
sampling
procedures).
Obtaining
a
representative
groundwater
sample
is
a
theoretical
ideal.
For
example,
the
redox
potential
of
the
aquifer
groundwater,
Eh,
is
likely
to
change
as
a
result
of
pressure
decreases
(gas
loss)
and
contamination
by
atmospheric
oxygen
that
occurs
during
the
sampling
process.
The
ratios
between
the
different
oxidation
states
of
a
multivariant
element
may
change,
and
the
total
concentration
of
that
element
may
also
change
during
sampling
due
to
precipitation.

To
determine
how
close
the
pumped
groundwater
is
to
being
representative,
a
comparison
is
made
by
monitoring
the
same
selected
field
parameters
whiz5
were
used
to
initially
define
the
background
characteristics
of
the
water.
When
these
parameters
appear
stable,
then
the
determination
is
made
that
the
water
sample
is
representative.
Stability
is
usually
defined
as
*
5
percent
of
the
average
of
preceding
parameter
measurements
made
on
the
final
day
of
sampling
for
previous
rounds.

When
stability
has
been
determined,
a
final
sample
is
collected.
The
final
sample
is
considered
to
be
as
representative
a
sample
of
the
undisturbed
groundwater
as
can
possibly
be
obtained
considering
the
analytical
and
technical
means
at
hand.

17
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
G
RO
U
N
DWATER
SU
RVEl
LLAN
CE
PROGRAM
PLAN
5.6.1
Serial
Samples
Serial
samples
are
collected
and
analyzed
in
the
mobile
laboratory
to
detect
and
monitor
the
chemical
variation
of
the
groundwater
as
a
function
of
the
volume
of
water
pumped.
The
purpose
of
implementing
this
rigorous
serial
sampling
and
analysis
program
is
to
ascertain
when
the
pumped
groundwater
has
reached
a
chemical
steady
state.
Once
serial
sampling
begins,
the
frequency
at
which
serial
samples
are
collected
and
analyzed
is
left
to
the
discretion
of
the
TL.
The
serial
sampling
frequency
is
based
upon
the
site­
specific
conditions
existing
at
each
well,
but
usually
is
performed
a
minimum
of
three
times
during
a
sampling
round.

The
three
field
parameters
of
temperature,
Eh,
and
pH
are
determined
by
either
an
"in­
line"
technique,
using
a
self­
contained
flow
cell,
or
an
"off­
line"
technique,
in
which
the
samples
are
collected
from
a
nylon
sample
line
at
atmospheric
pressure.
The
iron,
divalent
cation,
chloride,
alkalinity,
specific
conductance,
and
specific
gravity
samples
are
collected
from
the
nylon
sample
line
at
atmospheric
pressure.

New
polyethylene
containers
are
used
to
collect
the
serial
samples
from
the
nylon
sample
line.
Serial
sampling
water
collected
for
solute
and
specific
conductance
determinations
is
filtered
through
a
0.45
pm
filter
membrane
using
a
stainless
steel,
in­
line
filter
holder.
Filtered
water
is
used
to
rinse
the
sample
bottle
prior
to
serial
sample
collection.
Unfiltered
groundwater
is
used
when
determining
temperature,
pH,
Eh,
and
specific
gravity.
Sample
bottles
are
properly
identified
and
labeled.

The
filtered
sample
collected
for
solute
analyses
is
immediately
analyzed
for
iron
and
alkalinity,
as
these
two
solution
parameters
are
extremely
sensitive
to
changes
in
the
ambient
water­
sample
pressure
and
temperature.
The
sample
aliquot
needed
for
the
other
chemical
parameter
analyses
may
be
taken
from
a
second
filtered
sample
bottle.
Temperature,
pH,
and
Eh,
when
not
measured
in
a
flow
cell,
are
measured
at
the
approximate
time
of
serial
sample
collection;
these
samples
are
collected
from
the
unfiltered
sample
line.

Experience
gained
from
the
serial
sampling
of
wells
has
shown
that
samples
to
be
analyzed
for
chloride
and
divalent
cations
can
be
stored
for
one
week
prior
to
analysis
with
confidence
that
the
analytical
results
will
not
be
altered.

Upon
completion
of
the
collection
of
the
final
sample
suite,
the
serial
sample
bottles
accrued
throughout
the
duration
of
the
pumping
of
the
well
are
discarded.
No
serial
sample
bottles
will
be
reused
for
sampling
purposes
of
any
sort.
However,
serial
samples
may
be
archived
for
a
period
of
time
depending
upon
the
need.
Procedures
for
sample
collection
and
analysis
are
generated,
approved,
and
maintained
by
the
site
documentation
process.

5.6.2
Final
Samples
18
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
G
RO
U
N
DWATER
S
U
RVEl
LLANC
E
PROGRAM
PLAN
The
final
sample
is
collected
once
the
pumped
groundwater
has
achieved
a
chemically
steady
state.
A
serial
sample
is
also
collected
and
analyzed
for
each
day
of
final
sampling.
Sample
preservation,
handling,
and
transportation
methods
are
designed
to
maintain
the
integrity
and
representativeness
of
the
final
samples.

Prior
to
collecting
the
final
samples,
the
collection
team
must
consider
the
analyses
to
be
performed
so
that
proper
shipping
or
storage
containers
can
be
assembled.

Final
samples
are
sent
to
contract
laboratories
and
analyzed
for
general
chemistry,
radionuclides,
metals,
and
selected
volatile
organic
compounds
that
are
specific
to
the
waste
anticipated
to
arrive
at
WIPP.
Gases
and
redox­
couples
were
analyzed
during
the
baseline
study,
but
these
data
are
not
needed
for
environmental
monitoring
and
are
no
longer
obtained
on
a
routine
basis.

Water
samples
are
collected
at
atmospheric
pressure
using
either
the
filtered
or
unfiltered
nylon
sampling
lines
branching
from
the
main
sample
line.
The
samples
are
collected
in
new
and
unused
glass
and
plastic
containers.

Before
the
final
sample
is
taken,
all
plastic
and
glass
containers
are
rinsed
with
the
pumped
groundwater,
either
filtered
or
unfiltered,
dependent
upon
analysis
protocol.
When
the
rinsing
procedure
is
completed,
the
final
sample
is
collected.

5.7
Sample
Preservation,
Trackina.
Packaaina
and
Transoortation
Many
of
the
chemical
constituents
that
are
measured
are
not
chemically
stable
and
need
to
be
preserved.
Samples
requiring
acidification
are
treated
with
either
high
purity
hydrochloric
acid,
nitric
acid,
or
sulfuric
acid
(ULTREX
or
equivalent),
depending
upon
the
standard
method
of
treatment
required
for
the
particular
parameter
suite.

The
procedure
used
by
the
contract
laboratory
to
which
the
samples
are
being
sent
prescribes
the
type
and
amount
of
preservative
which
should
be
used.
This
information
is
recorded
on
the
Final
Sample
Checklist
for
use
by
field
personnel
when
final
samples
are
being
collected.

The
sample
tracking
system
at
WlPP
uses
uniquely
numbered
Chain
of
Custody
Forms
and
Request
for
Analysis
Forms.
The
primary
consideration
for
storage
or
transportation
is
that
samples
must
be
analyzed
within
the
prescribed
holding
times
for
the
parameters
of
interest.
Procedures
for
sample
tracking
and
preservation
are
generated,
approved,
and
maintained
by
the
site
documentation
process.

The
prescribed
transport
temperature
for
the
organic
samples
is
four
degrees
Celsius.
This
temperature
must
be
maintained
until
the
sample
reaches
the
contracted
laboratory.

Insulated
shipping
containers
packaged
with
reusable
blue
ice
are
used
to
keep
the
19
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
samples
cool
during
transport
to
the
contract
laboratory.
Hold
times
for
specific
analytical
parameters
require
samples
to
be
shipped
by
express
air
freight.
The
coolers
are
packaged
to
meet
Department
of
Transportation
and
International
Air
Transportation
Association
commercial
carrier
regulations.

5.8
Qualitv
Assurance.
Records
Manaaernent
and
Document
Control
All
aspects
of
quality
assurance,
records
management,
and
control
of
documents
generated
as
a
result
of
WQSP
are
governed
by
the
QAPD;
WP
15­
PR,
Records
Management
Plan;
and
implementing
procedures
generated,
approved,
and
maintained
by
the
site
documentation
process.

A
chemistry
laboratory
notebook
is
maintained
in
the
mobile
laboratory
to
record
the
overall
conditions
at
the
well,
the
analytical
difficulties
or
problems
experienced,
and
any
information
which
may
be
pertinent
to
future
interpretation
and
scientific
use
of
the
field
data.
The
original
notebook
is
kept
in
the
field
laboratory.
A
copy
of
the
notes
made
for
each
sampling
round
is
kept
in
a
fire­
resistant
file
cabinet.

All
field
data
collected
are
organized
into
a
data
book.
The
typical
field
data
book
contains
the
following:

A
copy
of
all
of
the
notes
entered
into
the
laboratory
notebook
concerning
the
sampling
round.

A
copy
of
all
chain
of
custody
forms
and
request
for
analysis
forms
used
to
distribute
the
final
samples.

A
copy
of
the
completed
final
sample
checklist.

A
copy
of
all
standardization
forms.

A
hard
copy
printout
of
all
computer
data
entries.

A
copy
of
all
of
the
Serial
Sampling
Report
Forms
submitted
for
the
sampling
round.

A
copy
of
all
worksheets
used
to
prepare
the
data
for
entry
into
the
computer.

A
written
summary
report
containing
a
description
of
the
well
completion
data,
a
brief
summary
of
serial
sampling
results,
and
general
observations.

A
copy
of
all
Field
Sketch
Plan
Forms.

A
copy
of
all
Field
Activity
Log
Forms.

20
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
0
A
computer
printout
of
all
data
logger
information,
if
a
data
logger
was
used.

0
Validated
Check
Print
copies
of
all
data
sheets.

A
contract
laboratory
data
book
is
made
for
each
contract
laboratory
used
to
analyze
samples
from
a
particular
well.
The
contract
laboratory
data
book
contains
at
a
minimum:

0
A
copy
of
the
contract
laboratory
analytical
report.

a
A
copy
of
the
computer
data
generated.

Data
collected
as
a
result
of
WQSP
activities
are
summarized
and
reported
on
an
annual
basis
in
the
Site
Environmental
Report.
Raw
data
are
stored
in
fireproof
cabinets
in
the
EM
Section
for
a
period
of
two
years
and
then
turned
over
to
PRS
for
storage
in
accordance
with
the
RIDS.

5.9
Calibration
Requirements
The
equipment
used
to
collect
data
for
the
WQSP
is
to
be
calibrated
in
accordance
with
WP
1
0­
AD,
WIPP
Maintenance
Administrative
Procedures
Manual.
The
metrology
laboratory
is
responsible
for
calibrating
needed
equipment
on
schedule,
in
accordance
with
written
procedures.
The
EM
Section
is
responsible
for
maintaining
current
calibration
records
for
each
piece
of
equipment.

6.0
WATER
LEVEL
MONITORING
PLAN
6.1
Scoee
This
section
of
the
WlPP
GSP
serves
as
the
controlling
document
for
the
WLMP.
The
WLMP
is
a
subprogram
of
the
GSP.
The
quality
assurance
activities
of
the
WLMP
are
in
strict
accordance
with
the
QAPD
and
the
quality
assurance
implementing
procedures
specific
to
environmental
monitoring
are
found
in
WP
02­
3,
Environmental
Monitoring
Procedures
Manual.

Water
level
monitoring
will
continue
through
the
postoperational
phase
of
the
WIPP.
This
plan
addresses
the
activities
of
the
WLMP
during
the
preoperational
and
operational
phases
of
the
WIPP.
Postoperational
activity
plans
will
be
formulated
at
a
later
date
and
will
address
the
objectives
of
water
level
monitoring
as
required
at
the
time
of
decommissioning.
.

6.2
Introduction
This
program
will
continue
the
collection
and
documentation
of
water
level
data
initiated
by
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(Richey,
1987)
and
SNL
(Stensrud
et
al.,
1988)
as
part
21
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
of
the
WlPP
Site
Characterization
Program.

As
currently
planned,
water
level
measurements
will
be
conducted
using
hydrologic
test
wells
that
were
constructed
for
the
site
characterization
and
WQSP.
These
test
wells
are
distributed
geographically
both
within
and
surrounding
the
WlPP
site.
The
frequency
of
measurement
is
subjectively
defined
by
the
need
to
record
the
dynamic
nature
of
the
potentiometric
surface
through
time.

On
October
1,
1988,
the
ES&
H
Department
assumed
responsibility
for
Groundwater
Level
Monitoring
Activities.
At
that
time
a
WLMP
plan
was
still
being
developed.
In
June
of
1989,
an
initial
plan
was
finalized
entitled
WP
07­
2,
WIPP
Water
Level
Monitoring
Program
Plan,
IT
Corp.
(June
1989).
WP
07­
2
was
subsequently
replaced
in
1990
by
WP
02­
1
,
Groundwater
Monitoring
Program
Plan
and
Procedures
Manual.

Collection
of
groundwater­
level
data
assists
the
DOE
in
meeting
performance
assessment,
regulatory
compliance,
and
permitting
requirements.
These
data
also
provide:

U
0
0
U
0
0
6.3
Data
collection
as
required
by
the
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan.

A
means
to
fulfill
commitments
made
in
the
FEIS.

A
means
to
comply
with
future
groundwater
inventory
and
monitoring
regulations.

Input
for
making
land
use
decisions,
(i.
e.,
designing
long­
term
active
and
passive
institutional
controls
for
the
site).

Assistance
in
understanding
any
changes
to
readings
from
the
water­
pressure
transducers
installed
in
each
of
the
shafts
to
monitor
water
conditions
behind
the
liners.

An
understanding
of
whether
or
not
the
horizontal
and
vertical
gradients
of
flow
are
changing
over
time.

0
biective
The
objective
of
the
WLMP
is
to
extend
the
documented
record
of
water­
level
fluctuations
in
the
Culebra
and
Magenta
members
of
the
Rustler
Formation
in
the
vicinity
of
the
WlPP
facility.
Water­
level
data
will
also
be
collected
from
wells
completed
in
other
water­
bearing
zones
overlying
and
underlying
the
WlPP
repository
horizon
when
access
to
those
zones
is
possible.
This
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
the
Bell
Canyon
Formation,
the
Forty
Niner
member
of
the
Rustler,
the
contact
zone
between
the
Rustler
and
Salado
Formations,
and
the
Dewey
Lake
Red
Beds,
when
access
to
these
zones
is
possible.

22
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
The
scope
of
the
program
is
subject
to
change
depending
upon
the
following:

a
Data
trends
0
Performance
assessment
program
needs
0
Environmental
Monitoring
Program
needs
0
Regulatory
compliance
needs
Water
level
measurements
will
be
taken
monthly
in
at
least
one
accessible
completed
interval
at
each
available
well
pad.
At
well
pads
with
two
or
more
wells
completed
in
the
same
interval,
quarterly
measurements
will
be
taken
in
the
redundant
wells.

Water
level
monitoring
will
continue
through
the
life
of
the
WlPP
Project.
It
may
be
deemed
necessary
to
temporarily
increase
the
frequency
of
monitoring
to
effectively
document
naturally
occurring
or
artificial
perturbations
that
may
be
imposed
on
the
hydrologic
systems
at
any
point
in
time.
This
will
be
conducted
in
selected
key
wells
by
increasing
the
frequency
of
the
manual
water­
level
measurements
or
by
monitoring
water
pressures
with
the
aid
of
electronic
pressure
transducers
and
remote
data­
logging
systems.

One
of
the
postulated
contaminate
pathways
to
the
biosphere
in
the
event
of
a
release
is
believed
to
be
in
the
water­
bearing
zones
of
the
Rustler
Formation,
more
specifically,
the
Magenta
and
Culebra
members.
The
Culebra
is
believed
to
be
the
more
conductive
of
the
two
(Mercer,
1983)
and
has
received
the
most
attention
in
site
characterization
studies.
Other
water
bearing
zones
in
the
vicinity
of
the
WlPP
site,
in
which
a
limited
number
of
hydrologic
test
wells
have
been
completed,
include
the
Dewey
Lake
Red
Beds,
the
RustlerlSalado
Contact,
the
Forty
Niner
Member
of
the
Rustler,
and
the
Bell
Canyon
Formation.
All
of
the
above
listed
zones
will
be
monitored
as
part
of
this
program
plan,
subject
to
availability.

Water
level
fluctuations
of
confined
water
bearing
units
may
result
from
a
variety
of
hydrologic
phenomena
(Freeze
and
Cherry,
1979)
and
(Davis
and
DeWeist,
1966).
These
include:

1
Changes
in
groundwater
storage
(ems.,
groundwater
recharge)

0
Changes
in
atmospheric
pressure
0
Deformation
of
the
water
bearing
zone
(e.
g.,
earthquakes
and
earth
tides)

0
Disturbances
within
or
adjacent
to
a
well
(e.
g.,
groundwater
pumping
and
shaft
construction)

23
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
Interpretation
of
water
level
measurements
and
corresponding
fluctuations
over
time
is
complicated
at
the
WlPP
by
spatial
variation
in
fluid
density
both
vertically
in
well
bores
and
areally
from
well
to
well.
To
monitor
the
hydraulic
gradients
of
the
hydrologic
flow
systems
at
the
WlPP
accurately,
actual
water
level
measurements
and
the
densities
of
the
fluids
in
the
well
bores
must
be
known.
When
both
of
these
parameters
are
known,
equivalent
freshwater
heads
can
be
calculated.
The
concept
of
freshwater
head
is
discussed
in
Lusczynski
(1
961)
where
the
following
definition
is
provided:

Fresh
water
head
at
a
given
point
in
groundwater
of
variable
density
is
defined
as
the
water
level
in
a
well
filled
with
fresh
water
from
that
point
to
a
level
high
enough
to
balance
the
existing
pressure
at
that
point.
Fresh
water
heads
.
define
hydraulic
gradients
along
a
horizontal.

A
discussion
explaining
the
calculation
of
freshwater
heads
from
midformation
depth
at
WlPP
can
be
found
in
Haug,
et
ai.
(1987).

A
Pressure
Density
Survey
Program
(PDSP)
has
been
conducted
to
determine
the
actual
variation
in
density
gradients
existing
in
the
test
wells.
The
PDSP
measured
the
actual
midformation
pressures
of
the
Culebra.
Data
from
this
program
have
identified
those
wells
in
which
some
adjustment
to
measured
water
level
values
must
be
accounted
for
in
order
to
calculate
the
measured
water
levels
accurately
in
terms
of
equivalent
freshwater
heads.

6.4
Field
Methods
Po
obtain
an
accurate
groundwater
level
measurement,
a
calibrated
water
level
measuring
device
is
lowered
into
a
test
well
and
the
depth
to
water
is
recorded
from
a
known
reference
point.
When
using
an
electrical
conductance
probe,
the
depth
to
water
can
be
determined
by
reading
the
appropriate
measurement
markings
on
the
embossed
measuring
tape
when
the
alarm
is
activated
at
the
surface.
Specific
procedures
regarding
the
specific
activities
governing
the
Water
Level
Monitoring
Program
are
generated,
approved,
and
maintained
by
the
site
documentation
process.

6.5
Records
and
Document
Control
All
incoming
data
will
be
processed
in
a
timely
manner
to
assure
data
integrity.
The
data
management
process
for
water
level
measurements
begins
with
completion
of
the
field
data
sheets.
Date,
time,
tape
measurement,
equipment
identification
number,
calibration
due
date,
initial
of
the
field
personnel,
and
equipmenffcomments
are
recorded
on
the
field
data
sheets.
If,
for
some
unexpected
reason,
a
measurement
is
not
possible
(Le.,
a
test
is
under
way
that
blocks
entry
to
the
well
bore),
then
a
notation
as
to
why
the
measurement
was
not
taken
is
recorded
in
the
comment
column.
Personnel
also
use
the
comment
column
to
report
any
security
observations
(Le.,
well
lock
missing).

24
WP
02­
1
Rev.
3
GROUNDWATER
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
PLAN
Data
recorded
on
the
field
data
sheets
and
submitted
by
field
personnel
are
subject
to
guidelines
outlined
in
WP
02­
3,
Environmental
Procedures
Manual.
The
data
are
entered
onto
a
computerized
worksheet.
The
worksheet
calculates
water
level
in
both
feet
and
meters
relative
to
the
top
of
casing
and
also
relative
to
mean
sea
level.

A
check
print
is
made
of
the
worksheet
printout.
The
check
print
is
used
to
verify
that
data
taken
in
the
field
is
properly
reported
on
the
database
printout.
A
minimum
of
I
O
percent
of
the
spreadsheet
calculations
are
randomly
verified
on
the
check
print
to
ensure
that
calculations
are
being
performed
correctly.
If
errors
are
found,
the
worksheet
is
corrected.
The
data
contained
on
the
computerized
worksheet
are
translated
into
a
database
file.
A
printout
is
made
of
the
database
file.
The
data
each
month
are
then
compiled
into
report
format
and
transmitted
to
the
appropriate
agencies
as
requested
by
the
DOE.

A
computerized
database
file
is
maintained
for
all
groundwater
level
data.
Monthfy
and
quarterly
data
are
appended
into
a
yearly
file.
Upon
verification
that
the
yearly
database
is
free
of
errors,
it
is
appended
into
the
project
database
file.
A
printed
copy
of
the
project
database
is
maintained
in
the
ES&
H
EM
fire­
resistant
storage
area
current
through
December
of
the
preceding
year.

6.6
ReDortinq
Data
collected
from
this
program
are
reported
in
the
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
(ASER).
The
ASER
includes
all
applicable
information
that
may
affect
the
comparison
of
water
level
data
through
time.
This
information
will
include
but
is
not
limited
to:

1
Well
configuration
changes
that
may
have
occurred
from
the
time
of
the
last
measurement
(i.
e.,
plug
installation
and
removal,
packer
removal
and
reinstallation,
or
both;
and
the
type
and
quantity
of
fluids
that
may
have
been
introduced
into
the
test
wells).

0
Any
pumping
activities
that
may
have
taken
place
since
publication
of
the
last
annual
report
(i.
e.,
water
quality
sampling,
hydraulic
testing,
and
shaft
installation
or
grouting
activities).

6.7
Calibration
Requirements
The
equipment
used
in
taking
groundwater
level
measurements
is
to
be
calibrated
in
accordance
with
WP
10­
AD,
WlPP
Maintenance
Administrative
Procedures
Manual.
The
WID
metrology
laboratory
is
responsible
for
calibrating
needed
equipment
on
schedule,
in
accordance
with
written
procedures.
The
EM
Section
is
responsible
for
maintaining
current
calibration
records
for
each
piece
of
equipment.

25
WATER
LEVEL
MEASUREMENTS
FOR
THE
MONTH
OF
MARCH
1999
COMMENTS
AND
OBSERVATIONS
1.
All
measurements
were
referenced
to
top
of
casing
and
adjusted
to
mean
sea
level.

2.
Measurements
were
made
with
water
levef
probe
E0112
and
PE0122.
The
calibration
recall
date
on
this
instrument
is
01/
15/
99.

3.
Well
number
0­
268,
packer
pressure
was
observed
to
be
200
psi.

4.
Well
number
Wipp­
12,
checked
for
H2S;
result
was
negative.

5.
Well
numbers
H­
05,
H­
06,
H­
07,
H­
08,
and
H­
09,
have
had
tall
grass
and
debris
removed
as
well
mesquite
trimmed
back
to
insure
safety
around
well
heads.

Page
1
0
R
1
G
I
N
A
L'
Report
Quarterty
Waterlevel
Measurements
For
MARCH
1999
WELL
ZONE
CASING
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
ADJUST
ADJUSTED
ADJUSTED
WATER
ELEVATION
NUMBER
ELEVATION
TO
TO
DEPTH
DEPTH
LEVEL
IN
it
amsl
WATER
TOC
TOC
METERS
ELEVATION
ME7ERS
AEC­
7
AEC­
8
C­
2505
C­
2506
C­
2507
CB­
1
0­
268
DOE­
1
DOE­
2
ERDA­
9
H­
01
(PIP)
H­
01
(ANNULUS)

H­
O2bl
H­
02b2
H­
02~
H­
03bl
H­
03b2
H­
03b3
H­
03dI49
(PIP)
H­
03dlDL
(PVC)
H­
04b
H­
04~
H­
02a
H­
05a
H­
05b
H­
0%
H­
06a
H­
06b
H­
06C
H­
07bl
H­
07b2
H­
08a
H­
09a
H­
O&

H­
09b
H­
0%
H­
1
Oa
H­
lob
H­
I
Ibl
H­
1
1
b2
H­
I
1
b3
H­
llb4
H­
12
H­
14
H­
15
H­
16
(PVC)
H­
16
(PIP)
H­
17
H­
I
8
H­
I
9b0
H­
19b2
H­
19b3
H­
19b4
H­
19b5
H­
I
9b6
H­
19b7
P­
14
CUL
BIC
SR
SR
SR
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
MAG
CUL
MAG
CUL
CUL
MAG
CUL
CUL
49ER
DL
CUL
MAG
CUL
CUL
MAG
CUL
CUL
MAG
CUL
CUL
MAG
R
U
SISAL
CUL
CUL
CUL
MAG
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
DL
ULM
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUI­
CUL
CUL
CUL
'

CUL
CUL
CUL
3657
25
3537.10
3413.05
34
12.87
3410.01
3328.38
3466.04
3419.09
3410.10
3399.53
3399.53
3378.09
3378.46
3378.31
3378.41
3390.64
3390.03
3390
01
3390.01
3333.35
3334.04
3506.24
3506.04
3506.04
3348.1
1
3348.25
3348.52
316417
3
164.40
3432.99
3432.90
3406.68
340686
3407.30
3689.47
341
1.62
3411.64
3412.42
3427.19
3347.11
3481
63
3406
77
3406.77
3385.31
3414.21
3418.38
3419.01
3419.09
3419.03
3418.63
3419.07
3418.99
3361.06
3280.70
3388.67
3688.67
3410.89
03110199
07:
OO
03/
08/
99
11
:43
03/
10/
99
1153
03/
10/
99
1156
03110199
12101
03/
09/
99
13:
14
03/
09/
99
1539
03/
10/
99
11:
23
03/
10199
08:
lO
03/
10/
99
09:
14
03l10199
09124
03110199
09:
29
03/
10/
99
09140
03/
10/
99
0957
03/
10/
99
09:
46
03/
10/
99
0951
03/
16/
99
12:
21
03/
16/
99
12~
24
03/
16/
99
12131
03/
16/
99
12145
03/
16/
99
12:
38
03110199
10:
21
0311
0199
10129
03110199
0750
03/
10/
99
07134
03110199
07:
43
03/
10/
99
08:
33
0311
0199
08143
03/
10/
99
08:
38
03/
09/
99
06:
15
03/
09/
99
06:
1
1
03/
09/
99
07:
18
03/
09/
99
07:
26
03/
09/
99
08:
03
03/
09/
99
07:
49
03/
09/
99
07%
03/
09/
99
0850
03/
09/
99
09:
OO
03/
09/
99
10145
03/
09/
99
I
I
:04
03/
09/
99
11:
14
03/
09/
99
10:
28
03/
09/
99
09:
49
03/
10/
99
10:
08
0311
0199
1
1
:36
03/
10/
99
12:
16
0311
0199
12:
20
0309l99
12:
45
03/
09/
99
13%
03/
09/
99
13:
48
03109199
14~
16
03/
09/
99
14:
02
03/
09/
99
13%
03/
09/
99
14110
03/
09/
99
13142
03108199
14107
03/
09/
99
Page
1
619.44
537.58
44.89
44.21
45.66
360.27
275.45
491.63
360.67
404.49
375.86
170.13
344.00
237.33
342.70
342.98
240.12
393.20
391.62
305.86
319.84
333.33
475.60
349.45
296.94
297.24
284.81
167.32
167.76
405.59
453.54
415.50
416.15
416.10
528.81
695.25
432.19
432.23
433.05
427.88
457.39
338.56
520.75
108.63
366.94
425.55
354.98
430.72
432.00
432.24
431.49
431.68
432.08
432.28
316.31
190.82
478.1
I
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.65
0.67
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.22
2.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.70
3.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
618.46
44.89
44.21
45.66
360.27
274.70
491
63
360.67
403.84
375.19
169.46
344.00
237.33
342.70
342.98
240.1
2
393.20
391.62
303.64
317.62
333.33
190.82
475.60
478.1
1
349.45
296.94
297.24
284.81
167.32
167.76
405.59
453.54
415.50
415.61
416.10
528.81
695.25
432.19
432.23
433.05
427.88
457.39
338.56
520.75
104.93
363.05
425.55
354.96
430.72
432.00
432.24
431.49
537.58
431.68
432.08
432.28
316.31
ia8.51
163.85
13.68
13.48
13.92
109.81
83.73
149.85
109.93
123.09
114.36
51.65
104.85
72.34
104.45
104.54
73.19
119.85
119.37
92.55
96.81
101.60
58.16
144.96
145.73
106.51
90.51
90.60
51.00
51.13
123.62
138.24
126.64
126.68
126.83
?61.18
211.91
131.73
131.74
131.99
130.42
139.41
103.19
158.72
31.98
110.66
129.71
108.19
131.67
131.75
131.52
131.58
131.70
131.76
96.41
86.81
131.28
3038.79
2999
52
3368.16
3368.66
3364.35
2968.1
1
3006.00
2974.41
3058.42
3006.26
3024.34
3230.07
3034.09
3141.13
3035.61
3035.43
3150.52
2996.83
2997.05
3086.37
3072.39
3000.02
3143.22
3030.64
3027.93
3156.59
3051.17
3051.01
3063.71
2996.85
2996.64
3027.40
2979.36
2991.18
2991.25
2991.20
3159.86
2994.22
2979.43
2979.41
2979.37
2983.01
2969.80
3008.55
2960.88
3301.84
3043.72
2959.76
3059.25
2987.66
2987.01
2986.85
2987.54
2986.95
2986.99
2986.71
51344.75
f
i
­7
ORIGINAL
926.22
914.25
1026.62
1025.77
1025.45
904.68
916.23
906
60
932.21
916.31
921.82
984.53
924.79
957.42
925.25
925.20
960
.:
913
­3
913
50
940.73
936.46
914.41
958.05
923.74
922.91
9c
9%.
,J
929.95
933.82
913.44
913.38
922.75
908.11
911.71
411.73
911.72
963.13
412.64
908.13
908.12
908.17
909.22
917
01
1W.
40
927.73
902.
f
3
432.46
910.64
970.44
910.39
410.60
910.42
910.35
9
1
D
"4
905.20
902.48
410.43
I
Report
Quarterly
WELL
NUMBER
Waterlevel
Measurements
For
MARCH
1999
ZONE
CASING
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
ADJUST
ADJUSTED
ADJUSTED
WATER
ELEVATION
ELEVATION
TO
LEVEL
IN
TO
DEPTH
DEPTH
ft
amsl
WATER
TOC
TOC
METERS
ELEVATION
METERS
P­
IS
P­
I
7
WIPP­
I2
WIPP­
13
WIPP­
18
WIPP­
I9
WIPP­
21
WIPP­
22
WIPP­
25
(PIP)
WIPP­
25
(ANNULUS)
WIPP­
26
p­
18
WIPP­
27
(PIP)
WIPP­
28
(PIP)
WIPP­
29
WIPP­
30
(PIP)
WQSP­
I
WQSP­
2
WQSP­
3
WQSP­
4
WQSP­
5
w
a
s
p
4
WQSP­
6a
CUL
cu
L
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
MAG
CUL
CUL
RUSlSAL
CUL
cu
L
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
DL
3311.38
3337.24
3478.42
3472.06
3405.71
34
58.76
3435.14
3418.96
3428.12
3214.39
3214.39
3153.20
3349.21
3429.05
3419.20
3463.90
3433.00
3384
40
3363
80
3364.70
3178
98
2978.26
3480.30
03/
09/
99
03/
09/
99
03/
09/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
03/
10/
99
0311
0199
03/
10/
99
031
10199
0310a199
o~
oa199
15:
19
13:
OO
1O:
ll
13:
15
12:
12
1313
13:
OO
12:
30
1250
09:
15
09:
21
14:
30
06:
OO
08:
15
14:
58
08:
51
1349
11:
ll
13:
26
11:
Il
11:
02
1051
10:
55
Page
2
298.49
355.35
321.49
440
32
347.73
426.01
396.62
404.78
399.86
156.34
133.09
99'00
300.18
11.42
364.41
366.26
466.70
447.99
350.50
165.86
156.68
404.18
383.75
0
00
054
0
00
064
0
00
0
00
0
00
0
00
0
42
0
00
0
00
0
42
0
42
0
00
0
21
0
21
0
21
0
21
0
21
0
21
0
18
o
68
2
oa
298.49
354.81
320.81
440.32
347.09
426.04
396.62
404.78
399.86
155.92
156.68
133.09
299.76
11.42
362.33
366.05
403.97
466.49
383.54
350.29
165.68
98.58
447.78
40.98
108.15
134.21
105.79
129.85
123.38
121.88
47.52
47.76
40.57
30.05
91.37
3.48
110.44
111.57
123.13
142.19
136.48
116.90
106.77
50.50
97.78
120.89
3012
89
918
33
2982
43
909
04
3157
61
962
44
3031
74
924
07
3058
62
932
27
3032.75
924
38
3038
52
926
14
3014
18
918
72
3028
26
923
01
3058
47
932
22
3057
71
931
99
3020
l?
920
53
3080
4
0
938
91
3049
45
929
47
2966
BJ
90429
3066
72
934
74
3053
15
930
60
3059
93
932
67
301
3
8f
91861
2985
22
909
90
3000
86
914
68
3013
51
918
52
319902
975
06
ORIGINAL
WATERLEVEL
ELEVATION
UPDATE
MARCH
1999
WELL
ZONE
CASING
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
ADJUST
ADJUSTEC
ADJUSTED
WATER
~L
N
A
T
i
O
h
l
NUMBER
ELEVATION
TO
TO
DEPTH
DEPTH
LEVEL
IN
k
amsl
WATER
TOC
TOC
METERS
ELEVATION
METERS
­­­­­­
AEC­
7
AEC­
7
AEC­
7
AEC­
7
AEC.
7
AEC­
7
AEC.
7
AEC­
7
AEC.
7
AEC­
7
AEC­
7
AEC­
7
==
E==.===
=======
s========
E=======
=E=====
==
3657
25
0415'98
06
12
61904
0
9
8
3657
25
0513'98
06
00
61889
0
9
8
3657
25
07/
15/
98
10
52
61901
098
3657
25
08/
12/
98
06
23
61922
0
9
8
3657
25
09/
10,98
11
58
61924
098
3657
25
10114198
06
14
619
13
0
9
8
3657
25
1111
1/
98
09
30
61954
0
9
8
365725
12107'98
11
06
61932
0
9
8
3657
25
01/
13/
99
06
18
61952
0
9
8
365725
OUOBi99
1226
61949
098
365725
03/
10/
99
0700
61944
0
9
8
3657
25
06/
11/
98
0605
618
94
098
.­
­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­
­­
.­
­­­­
­
­­­­­­­­­­
­­
51806
18838
517
91
188
34
517.96
10035
618.03
108.38
518.24
188.44
518.15
18841
610.34
188.47
518.54
188.53
618.51
100
52
618.46
188.51
618.26
188.45
518.56
188.54
.­­__­­___
.­­­­­­­_­
3039
19
3039
34
3039.29
3039
22
3039.01
3038
99
3039.10
3038.91
3038.71
3038.73
3038
69
3038.74
­
­­
­
­­
­
­­­­­­­
a
926
35
926
3
9
926
35
926
29
926
2%
926
32
926
t9
926.26
926
20
926.21
926.22
926
3a
AEC­
7.
CULEBRA
i
3~
us
m
r
i
.............
..
........
i
j
............
........
­
i
:­
I
:c
'E
­1
:i
1
j
gmtQ+
.......
.......................
..................................................

I
;ma)­
..............
~

!
t
.....
..
................
3oy)
W­

'
!

......................................
i
i
:!

:I
i
:
3037
a,
f
?>
.i
............................................
........
i
i
y)
ym)/..
....
.I
%35W
'
i
I
o
u
i
~a
c
y
~y
4
~
0
~1
,~
07;
7490
W1298
09110196
11y1­
11/
11­
12/
07­
38
O
l
K
6
9
O
y
W
:
DATE
PAGE
1
OF
80
WATERLEVEL
EtEVATION
UPDATE
MARCH
1999
WELL
ZONE
CASING
DATE
TIME
OEPTH
ADJUST
AOJUSTEC
ADJUSTED
WATER
ZLEVATION
NUMBER
ELEVATION
TO
TO
DEPTH
DEPTH
LEVEL
IN
f~
amsl
WATER
TOC
TOC
METERS
ELEVATION
METERS
AEC­
8
AEC­
8
AEC­
8
AEC­
8
AECd
AEC­
8
AEC­
8
AEC­
8
AEC­
8
AEC­
8
AEC­
8
AEC­
8
BIC
BIC
BIC
B/
C
B/
C
BIC
BIC
BIC
BIC
BIC
BIC
81C
3537
10
3537
10
3537.10
3537.10
3537.10
3537.10
3537
10
3537.10
3537
10
3537.10
3537.10
2537.10
0411
5198
031
3/
98
0611
1/
98
07115198
0811
2/
98
09110198
10114i98
11/
09/
98
12107198
01113/
99
02/
08/
99
03/
08/
99
07
15
549
94
06.43
548
95
07
00
547.91
11:
18
546.66
07:
16
545.62
12:
21
544.54
07.02
543.27
11:
36
542.28
11:
36
540.74
06.52
539
70
12.02
538.61
11:
43
537
58
0
00
0
00
0
00
0
00
0
00
0
00
0
00
0
00
0.00
0.00
0
00
0
00
549
94
548
95
547
91
546
66
545
62
544
54
543.27
540.74
539.70
538
61
537
58
542
2a
167
62
167
32
167
00
166
62
166
30
165
98
165.59
165
29
164.82
164
50
164.17
163.85
2987
15
2988.75
2989
19
2990.44
2991
40
2992
56
2993
03
2994
82
2996.36
2997.40
2998
49
2999.52
910
44
910
79
911.11
911.49
911
80
912.!
3
912
52
912.82
913.29
913.61
913.94
974.25
AEC­
8.
BELL
CANYON
­i
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
i
I
i
i
;
!

!

I
i
I
I
PAGE
2
OF
80
0
>

2
'I
1
1
"./
%
\\
1
I
3
0
­

n
?
I
rs
­
J
0
I
I
s
>
a
­0
0
v
?
1
­
­

b
0
03
0,
0,
m
C
L
Q,
c
0
N
0
>
a,
E
Q,
t
0
N
I
0
>
al
cz
n
0
0
I
*s
a
U
1
5
:
cnc
m
.­

Q,

I
.E
a2
E
0
N
I:.
hs
+

a
a
a
+
t
Q,
E
0
N
n
d
­

I
I
h
I
i
Ln
0
L3
c
T
c
0
0
7
I
8
rn
m
a
aJ
0,
co
R
I
L
.

l
a
4
l
a
0
a
5
U
'$
7
­
..
W
0
a
E
i=

t­
I
I_

i
I
i
!

/
m
t
U
E
E
0
u
+­­­
a
C
0
N
L
Q)

=n
E
5
z
I
L
I
E
0
~

0
\I
K
Y
\N
i
A
­
i
:
1
i
I
$1:
X
I
I
I
!:
0
>
Q,
oc
7
1
.$
a
p
r
/)E
m
'­
i
i
I
I
Y
m:
l
i
c1
c,

I
H
I
I
1
l
l
l
i
I
I
I
Q,
C
0
N
L
Q,
=a
2
25
Groundwarer
level
Measurements
for
March
1999
i
______________­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­~
______________­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
&ELL­
NO
AEC­
7
AEC­
3
0;
c
3537
10
C­
2505
SR
3413
05
C­
2506
SR
3412.87
C­
2507
SR
D­
268
CUL
DOE­
1
CUL
3466.04
DOE­
2
CUL
3419
09
ERDA­
9
H
a
l
(PIP)

H42a
CUL
3378
09
HU2bl
H02b2
CUL
H42c
CUL
3378.41
H43bl
H43b2
CUL
3390.03
H03d/
49
(PIP)
49ER
3390.01
H43d/
DL
{PVC)
/
DL
HU4b
CUL
Hd4c
HdSa
CUL
Hd5b
CUL
3506
04
H45c
Hd6a
CUL
3348.11
H46b
CUL
H46c
MAG
334852
H47bl
CUL
H47b2
3164.40
H48a
H48c
H49a
CUL
3406
68
H49b
CUL
H09c
CUL
3407
30
H­
loa
H­
lob
CUL
H­
11
b
l
CUL
H­
1
1
b2
CUL
3411
64
H­
11
b3
CUL
H
­l
l
M
CUL
3410
89
H­
12
CUL
H­
14
CUL
H­
15
CUL
C6­
1
CUL
3328
39
/
H­
Ol
(ANNULUS)
/

H­
03b3
,
CUL
H­
16
(PVC)
/
DL
H­
16
(PIP)/
ULM
34m.
77
H­
17
CUL
335.31
H­
18
CUC
3059
25/
H­
19b0
CUL
H­
19b2
CUL
2987.011
H­
19b3
CUL
H­
19M
CUL
H­
19b5
CUL
H­
19b6
CUL
H­
19b7
CUL
3418.99
P­
14
CUL
3361
06
P­
15
CUL
P­
17
CUL
P­
18
CUL
WIPP­
12
CUL
WIPP­
13
CUL
905.7
1
WIPP­
18
CUL
WIPP­
19
CUL
WIPP­
21
CUL
WIPP­
22
WIPP­
25
(PIP)
3058.47
.­
.­
­MSL­
M
926
22.
914
25,
'
1026
62/
1026
77/
1025
4
5
/
904
6
8
/
916
23/
906
60/

957
42/
925
2
5
/
925
20/
960
28/

940
7
3
/

4
5
8
0
4
922
9
d
930
oo/
929
9
5
/
936
jd
914
4
4
923
74f
962
1w
933
82/
913
d
913
38/
922
7
4
908
11/
911
71/
911
73
911
72'

908
1
2
/
908
11/
909
2
2
1
905
9170l/
902
4a/
1006
d
932
4&/

410
44
910
39/
910
60
910
6
4
1
910
4
2
/

909
0
4
1
962
44/
924
07/

918
72
923
O
J
432
2
2
1
WIPP­
25
(ANNULUS)
/'

WiPP­
26
WIPP­
27
(PIP)

/
WiPP­
29
"PP­
30
(PIP)
`wasp­
i
wasp­
2
wasp­
3
wasp4
wOSP­
6a
ViQSP­
5
`rVQSP­
6
h4AG
CUL
CUL
RUS
SAL
CUL
cuc
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUC
cui
DL
3211.39
3153
20
3249
21
2978
26
3
2
9
05
3419.20
3463.90
3590
30
w
3
00
3384.40
3363
80
3364
70
3178
98
03/
08/
99`
13.49/
03/
08/
96
11.1
1/
0
3
0
6
1
9
~1
3
:Z
d
0311019
11.11/

03/
10/
96
lo&
03m99
10.55/
03i10196
11
0
2
/
156.68/
1
3
3
.0
9
I
1
42/

266
26/
34
18/
4
6
6
.7
9
364
4
J
350.50
1
6
5
.d
0
o
d
0
*d
0
4
2
5
5
2
0
8
1
0
4
2
1
0.00
0
2
1
1
0
.2
y
O
.t
l
/

0.18/
1
5
6
.6
4
299.7
447.7
165.68
3080
40
3024.45
/

3054
93
/
2986.84/
3066.72
/
3053.
TS
f
3013
81
/

301331/
3199.02/

CHECKPRINT
AEC­
I
AEC­
7
AEC­
T
AEG?
AEC­
7
AEGt
AEC­
T
AEC­
7
AEC­
7
AECI
AEC­
7
nEG7
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
CUL
3657
25
3657
25
3657.25
3657.25
3657
25
3657
25
3657
25
3657
25
3657
25
3657.25
3657.25
3657
25
04/
15198
031
398
0611
1/
90
07115198
08112l98
09l10198
10114198
1
Ill
1198
lrn7198
Oll1359
02/
08/
99
Q3110/
99
06.12
06.00
06.05
1052
06~
23
11.58
06'14
0930
11.06
06:
10
r2:
zs
07­
W
619
04
6:
8.89
618.94
619.01
619.22
619.24
619.13
619
54
619.32
619.52
619.49
619.44
0.98
0
98
0
98
0.98
0.98
0
98
0
98
0
98
0
98
0.98
0.98
0.98
618
06
617
91
61
7.96
618
03
618
24
618
26
618
15
618
56
618.34
618.54
618.51
61846
188.38
3039.19
18834
303934
188.35
3039.29
188
30
303922
188.44
3039.01
18845
303899
188
41
3039.10
18854
3038.69
18847
30Jg.
91
188.53
3038.7l
188
52
3038
74
188
51
3038.79
926.35
926.39
426.35
926.29
926.28
926.32
926.19
926.28
926.20
926.21
926.22
926.3.~

I
I
AEC­
7,
CULEBRA
I
i
'
­O
D
,
i
t
I
i
31y400~
.

Sam:
.i
1
.........
........
..........
..i
I
4
........
.....
....

;I
:
..

...

.................................................
.
J
m
w
j
1
:f
;E
i
...........................................................................................
I
2
30*
1m?.
...

._.....
.­
I
`I
`L
,
8
w
.m
!..
....
...........................................................................................

1
jnow
..................................................................
­m
i
..
..

!
:
..........................................................................................................
.....­...­.
..

!
...................................................................................
_..­.
I
i
I
w
'
­D
A
E
'
7
:
..............

I
;I
.
xnS53oi
l
l
/l
t
N
1m7m
OllrvsD
OMIy90
cw&
s9(
0
~y
.q
c%
3%
Wii.
SU
0717598
WlZ98
,
I
PAGE
i
OF
a0
WATERLEVEL
ELE'IATION
UPDATE
MARCH
1955
ZONE
CAS"
OAT€
TIME
DEPTH
ADJUST
ADJUSTEC
ADJUSTED
WATER
ELEVATION
'MU
NUMBER
ELEL
ATION
TO
TO
DEPTH
DEPTH
LEVEL
a
c
3537
:o
EIC
3531
:a
EIC
3537
10
BIC
3537
10
0:
c
3533
70
EiC
3531
10
8;
c
3537
10
BiC
3337
10
BfC
3537
IO
e/
c
3537
t
o
IIC
3537
10
0
x
3537
10
04
15/
98
06.
'11198
07!
15/
98
OP'10198
10.14/
98
11
,'09/
9a
12'07198
OtiW99
OZ08/
99
03;
08/
99
os.
13/
98
os:
iu9a
07.15
06:
43
07
00
11:
18
07:
16
12:
21
07:
02
11:
36
11:
36
0632
12:
02
11:
43
549
04
548
55
547.91
546
66
545
62
544
54
543
27
542
28
540
74
539
70
537
58
538
61
0
00
549
94
167
62
0
00
548
95
167
32
0.00
547
91
167.00
0.00
546.66
166
62
000
545.62
16630
0
00
543
27
165
59
165
29
0.00
542.28
0.00
540.74
164
82
0.00
53970
164
50
0.00
538.61
164
t
7
0
00
537.58
16385
0
00
544.54
165
9a
2987
f
6
2988.15
2989.
i
9
2990.44
2991.40
2992.56
2993.83
2994.112
2996.36
2997.40
2998.49
2999.52
910
49
915
79
411
11
911.49
911.80
912.13
91252
912.82
913
29
91161
9
t
3.94
914.15
AEC­
8,
BELL
CANYON
,
I
YIym
.
..
...
.
..
.
...
.
.
3x230
­

PAGE
2
OF
80
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
Calendar
Year
1997
DOEIWIPP
98­
2225
Issue
Date:
September
29,
1998
1997
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
DOElWlPP
98­
2225
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
LIST
OF
TABLES
iii
­)
..........................................................

LIST
OF
FIGURES
.........................................................
iv
ACRONYMSAND
ABBREVIATIONS
...........................................
xi
3
W
CHAPTER
1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
........................................
1­
1
1.1
Compliance
Summary
..........................................
1­
2
1.1.1
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
Annual
Mitigation
Report
.......
1­
2
1.1.2
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
Title
I
l
l
Emergency
and
Hazardous
Chemical
Inventory
................
1­
2
1
.
1.3
New
Mexico
Air
Quality
...................................
1­
2
1
.
1.4
Environmental
Compliance
Assessments
.....................
4­
3
1.1.5
IS0
14001
Environmental
Management
Systems
...............
13
1
.
1.6
Voluntary
Release
Assessment
Program
at
Selected
Solid
Waste
Management
Units
at
WlPP
................................
1­
3
1.1.7
Federal
Acquisition,
Recycling,
and
Waste
Prevention
...........
1­
3
Environmental
Monitoring
Program
Information
.......................
1­
4
1.2.
I
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
.............................
14
Environmental
Radiological
Program
Information
.....................
1­
4
1.3.1
Airborne
Particulate
Sampling
..............................
1­
5
1.3.2
Soil
Sampling
...........................................
1­
5
1.3.3
Groundwater
...........................................
?a
1.3.4
Surface
Water
and
Sediment
Sampling
.......................
1­
6
1.3.5
Biotic
Sampling
.........................................
1­
7
Nonradiological
Environmental
Monitoring
Information
.................
$­
7
1.4.1
Land
Management
.......................................
1­
8
1.4.2
Meteorology
............................................
1­
8
1.4.3
Wildlife
Population
Monitoring
..............................
1­
8
1.4.4
Reclamation
of
Disturbed
Lands
............................
?­
9
1.5
QualityAsscnrance
............................................
1­
10
1.2
1.3
1.4
CHAPTER2
INTRODUCTION
..............................................
2­
1
Description
of
the
WlPP
Project
...................................
2­
1
WlPP
Property
Areas
.....................................
2­
2
Demographics
Within
the
Affected
Environment
................
2­
3
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
CHAPTER
3
COMPLIANCE
SUMMARY
......................................
3­
1
3.1
Compliance
Overview
..........................................
3­
1
Statutes
and
Regulations
Applicable
to
WlPP
........................
3­
1
3.3
Compliance
Status
.............................................
3­
2
Liability
Act
.............................................
3­
2
3.3.2
Federal
Acquisition.
Recycling.
and
Pollution
Prevention
.........
3
3
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
.....................
3­
3
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
...........................
3­
5
3.3.5
Clean
Air
Act
...........................................
3­
6
3.3.6
Clean
Water
Act
....................................
..
.
3­
8
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
...................................
3­
9
National
Historic
Preservation
Act
..........................
3­
10
3.3.9
Hazardous
Materials
Transportation
Act
.....................
3­
72
3.3.10
Packaging
and
Transportation
of
Radioactive
Materials
.........
3­
13
3.2
3.3.1
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response.
Compensation.
and
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.7
3.3.8
1997
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
DOEMliPP
98­
2225
3.4
Other
Significant
Accomplishments
and
Ongoing
Compliance
Activities
...
3­
14
3.4.1
Environmental
Compliance
Assessment
Program
..............
3­
14
3.4.2
Site
Environmental
Management
Program
....................
3­
15
3.4.3
IS0
14000
­
Standards
for
Environmental
Management
.........
3­
15
3.4.4
Pollution
Prevention
Committee
............................
3­
16
3.4.5
Environmental
Training
..................................
3­
17
CHAPTER
4
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM
INFORMATION
......................
4­
1
4.1
Environmental
Monitoring
Plan
...................................
4­
1
4.2
Baseline
Data
................................................
4­
1
4.3
Land
Management
Programs
....................................
4­
2
4.3.1
Land
Management
and
Environmental
Compliance
..............
4­
3
4.3.2
Wildlife
Population
Monitoring
..............................
4­
3
4.3.3
Reclamation
of
Disturbed
Lands
............................
4­
6
4.3.4
Oil
and
Gas
Surveillance
..................................
4­
7
CHAPTER
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
ENVIRONMENTAL
RADIOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT
..................
5­
1
Airborne
Gross
AlphalBeta
......................................
5
1
Airborne
Particulate
...........................................
5­
18
SoilSamples
................................................
5­
32
Surface
Water
...............................................
5­
43
Groundwater
...............................................
5­
56
Sediments
..................................................
5­
56
Biota
......................................................
5­
68
Trend
Analyses
..............................................
5­
77
CHAPTER
6
ENVIRONMENTAL
NONRADIOCOGICAL
PROGRAM
INFORMATION
....
6­
1
6.1
Principal
Functions
of
Nonradiological
Sampling
......................
6­
1
6.2
Meteorology
..................................................
6­
1
6.2.1
Climatic
Data
...........................................
6­
1
6.2.2
Wind
Direction
and
Wind
Speed
............................
6­
2
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
Monitoring
............................
6­
2
6.4
Seismic
Activity
...............................................
6­
7
6.5
Liquid
Effluent
Monitoring
.......................................
6­
7
6.3
CHAPTER
7
GROUNDWATER
PROTECTION
.................................
7­
1
CHAPTER
8
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
......................................
..
.
8­
1
8.1
Sample
Collection
Methodologies
..............
..................
8­
1
Revision
of
Procedures
.........................................
8­
2
8.3
interlaboratory
Comparisons
.....................................
8­
2
Analytical
Laboratory
Quality
Assurance
and
Quality
Control
............
8­
7
8.5
Data
Handling
................................................
8­
7
8.6
Records
Management
...........................................
8­
7
CHAPTER9
REFERENCES
...............................................
9­
1
8.2
8.4
APPENDIX
A
.
LOCATION
CODES
...........................................
A­
1
APPENDIX
B
.
CONCENTRATIONS
OF
ALPHA
AND
BETA
ACTIVITIES
IN
AIR
PARTICULATE
..............................................
B­
1
a
ii
1997
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
DOWJPP
98­
2225
CHAPTER
7
GROUNDWATER
PROTECTION
Current
groundwater
monitoring
activities
at
WIPP
are
outlined
in
the
Groundwater
Monitoring
Program
Plan
and
Procedure
Manual
(WP
02­
1,
Revision
3).
The
plan
is
a
QA
document
that
contains
program
plans
for
each
of
the
activities
performed
by
ground­
water
monitoring
personnel.
In
addition,
WP
02­
1
provides
detailed
pr­
dures
for
performing
specific
activities
such
as
pumping
system
installations,
fiqfjfparameter
analyses
and
documentation,
and
QA
records
manage­
ment.
Groundwater
monitoring
activities
are
also
defined
in
the
EMP.

The
objective
of
the
groundwater
monitoring
program
is
to
determine
the
physical
and
chemical
characteristics
of
groundwater;
maintain
surveillance
of
groundwater
levels
surrounding
the
WiPP
facility,
both
before
and
throughout
the
operational
lifetime
of
the
facility;
and
futfili
the
requirements
of
the
RCRA
Part
B
permit
application
and
DOE
Order
5400.1.

Background
water
quality
data
were
collected
from
1985
through
the
1990
sampling
period
to
futfill
the
requirements
of
DOE
Order
5400.
A
as
reported
in
DOENVIPP
92­
013,
"Background
Water
Quality
Characterization
Report
for
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant"
In
the
latter
part
of
1994
seven
new
wells
were
drilled
(Figures
7.5
through
7.11)
in
anticipation
of
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
Background
data
were
collected
from
these
wells
from
1995
through
1997
and
reported
in
DOUWIPP
98­
2285,
Waste
isolation
Pilot
Plant
RCRA
Background
Groundwater
Quality
Baseline
Report."
This
background
data
will
be
compared
to
water
quality
data
collected
throughout
the
opera­
tional
life
of
the
facility.
Preoperational
data
gathered
in
the
interim
period
will
be
used
to
strengthen
the
background
data,
to
evaluate
the
need
to
make
adjustments
to
comparison
criteria,
and
to
determine
future
regulatory
needs
and
land­
use
decisions.

The
data
obtained
by
the
WQSP
in
1997
supported
two
major
programs
at
WIPP:
(1)
the
Groundwater
Monitoring
Program.
in
compliance
with
40
CFR
Q
264
and
(2)
perfQrmance
assessment
in
compliance
with
4f&
FR
§
'IS%
Each
of
these
programs
requiresa'
unique
set
of
analyses
and
data.
Particular
sample
needs
are
defined
by
each
pr­
m.
In
addition
to
the
characterization
of
grounhater,
the
WQSP
supported
radio­
nuclide
monitoring
for
the
WID
Environmental
Analysis
and
Compliance
Section.
Results
of
radionuclide
sampling
are
discussed
in
Chapter
5.
Representatives
from
the
EEG
were
on
hand
at
selected
sampling
events
to
collect
samples
for
independent
evaluation.

The
WIPP
site
lies
within
the
Pews
Valley
section
of
the
Southern
Great
Plains
physiographic
province
(Powers
et
at.,
1978).
Geologic
and
lithologic
descn'ptions
of
the
area
surrounding
the
site
can
be
found
in
documents
such
as
the
EMP,
the
Groundwater
Protection
Management
Program
Plan
(DOENVIPP
96­
2162),
and
USGS
83­
4016
(Mercer,
1983).
'Industries
in
the
vicinity
that
could
potentially
contribute
to
the
pollution
of
the
groundwater
are
potash
mining,
oil
and
gas
explorationlproduction,
and
agriculture.

The
Culebra
is
the
most
significant
water­
bearing
unit
within
the
vicinity
of
WIPP.
No
known
hydrologic
connection
exists
between
the
repository
horizon
and
the
Culebra.
Surveillance
of
hydrological
characteristics
in
the
Culebra
provides
data
that
can
be
used
to
detect
changes
in
water
characterization.
It
also
provides
additional
data
for
use
in
hydra­
logic
models
designed
to
predict
long­
term
performance
of
the
repository.

Groundwater
surface
elevation
data
is
gathered
from
77
well
bores;
five
of
which
are
equipped
with
production­
inflated
packers
to
allow
groundwater
level
surveillance
of
more
than
one
producing
zone
through
the
same
well
bore
(Figure
7.2).

Groundwater
quality
data
were
gathered
from
six
wells
completed
in
the
Culebra
member
o
f
the
Rustler
formation
and
one
well
completed
in
the
Dewey
Lake
formation
(Figure
7.1).
The
1997
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
DOEMliPP
98­
2225
water
quality
sampling
process
has
been
developed
using
logistics
from
groundwater
wells
originally
constwcted
for
characterization,
not
intended
for
groundwater
monitoring
activities.

Seven
wells
were
drilled
in
the
latter
part
of
1994
constructed
for
the
explicit
purpose
of
gathering
water
quality
data.
Thesgwells
are
constructed
with
fiberglass
casing
and
screens
that
will
not
bias
sample
collection.
Similar
sampling
protocols
to
those
used
in
the
past
for
wells
drilled
for
resource
evaluation
and
site
geologic
characterization
were
used
through
CY
1997.
More
effiaent
sampling
methods
are
being
evaluated
and
should
be
phased
in
during
CY
1998.

Sampling
episodes
are
referred
to
as
a
"sampling
round."
Each
sampling
round
con­
sists
of
the
collection
of
two
types
of
samples:
(1)
serial
samples
and
(2)
final
samples.
Serial
samples
are
taken
periodically
while
the
well
is
being
purged.
Key
physical
and
chemical
parameters
(known
as
field
parameters)
are
analyzed
and
compared
with
past
serial
sampling
data,
when
available,
until
a
chemical
steady
state
has
been
reached.
A
chemical
steady
state
is
defined
as
f
5
percent
of
the
average
of
the
three
to
five
preceding
para­
meter
measurements
made
on
the
final
day
of
serial
sampling
from
preceding
sampling
rounds.
Stabilition
of
these
field
parameters
is
a
function
of
purging
and
is
used
as
an
indi­
cator
to
determine
if
the
groundwater
is
representative
of
the
zona,
bdng
sampled.
A
%a1
sample
is
collected
when
it
has
been
determined
that
the
pumped
groundwater
has
achieved
a
representative
state.
The
sample
is
then
sent
off
site
to
a
contract
laboratory
for
analysis.

Groundwater
monitoring
activities
during
CY
1997
included
Groundwater
Quality
Sampling
and
Groundwater
Level
Surveillance.

Groundwater
Qualitv
SamDling
Sampling
for
groundwater
quality
was
performed
semiannually
at
seven
well
sites
during
CY
1997
(Figure
7.1).
The
wells
were
7­
2
serially
sampled
as
soon
as
possible
after
the
pump
was
turned
on
to
better
observe
early
chemical
reactions
to
pumping.
Field
analysis
for
Eh,
pH,
specific
gravity,
specific
conduc­
tance,
alkalinity,
chloride,
divalent
cations,
and
total
iron
were
performed
on
a
periodic
basis
during
the
serial
sampling.
These
field
para­
meters
were
used
as
indicators,
during
the
purging
process
to
better
determine
when
the
fonation
water
being
pumped
had
reached
a
representative
state.
Normally
this
process
­&
quired
four
to
seven
days
to
complete.
Following
the
field
analysis
of
the
final
serial
sample,
samples
were
cokcted
and
shipped
to
an
independent,
contracted,
laboratory
for
analysis.
Parameters
of
art.
alysis
by
the
contracted
laboratory
include
the
groundwater
monitoring
list
in
Appendix
IX
of
40
CFR
Q
264
and
those
indicator
parameters
wmrnon
to
the
Culebra
member
of
the
Rustler
as
listed
in
Table
7.1.

WlPP
has
not
received
waste;
thekfore
no
hazardous
constituent
has
been
introduced
to
the
environment
as
a
result
of
WIPP
opera­
tions.
Data
collected
provide
background
information.

The
total
gallons
of
water
removed
from
the
Culebra
as
a
resutt
of
groundwater
surveillance
activity
was
approximately
44,318
gallons
throughout
the
year.
During
the
same
period
10,962
gallons
of
water
were
removed
from
the
Dewey
lake
formation.
Water
quality
of
the
Culebra
sampled
near
WlPP
is
naturally
poor
and
is
not
suitable
for
human
consumption
or
for
agricultural
purposes.
The
groundwater
of
the
Culebra
is
considered
to
be
class
Ill
waters
by
€PA
guidelines.
The
water
contains
naturally
high
concentrations
of
total
dissolved
solids
and
mineral
constituents
primarily
of
chloride,
calcium,
magnesium,
sodium
and
potassium
(Mercer,
1983).
The
high
total
of
dissolved
solids
concentration
has
historically
posed
problems
for
laboratories
performing
analysis
because
the
water
interferes
with
the
normal
operation
of
standard
laboratory
equip­
ment
such
as
Atomic
Absorption
or
Inductively
Coupled
Plasma,
causing
estimated
quantitation
limits
to
be
inconsistent.
1997
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
DOEMIIPP
98­
2225
Water
quality
measurements
performed
in
the
Dewey
Lake
fotmation
indicate
that
the
waters
are
considerably
fresher.
Samples
collected
from
the
Dewey
Lake
formation
are
suitable
for
livestock
consumption
having
TDS
values
below
10,000
mg/
L.
These
waters
are
classi­
fied
as
Class
II
waters
according
to
€PA
Guidance.
Saturation
of
the
Dewey
Lake
Formation
in
the
area
of
WlPP
is
discontinuous
and
no
hydrologic
connection
has
been
established
that
would
indicate
that
WIPP
activities
would
have
an
Impact
on
the
Dewey
Lake.

Sampling
during
calendar
year
1997
marked
the
end
of
data
collection
for
baseline
purposes
for
the
RCRA
permitting
process.
A
detailed
baseline
report
entitled
'Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
RCRA
Background
Groundwater
Quality
Report"
was
issued
just
prior
to
the
Issuance
of
the
1997
ASER.

To
summarize;
this
report
contains
calculated
background
concentrations
for
groundwater­
quality
parameters
from
seven
monitoring
wells
that
are
located
within
the
boundaries
of
the
WlPP
site.
From
1995
to
1997,
the
GMP
collected
groundwater
samples
from
the
Culebra
and
Dewey
Lake
water­
bearing
zones
in
the
area
of
the
WIPP
site.
The
GMP
has
sampled
7
WlPP
monitoring
wells
five
separate
times.
Groundwater
was
sampled
during
the
GMP
from
the
Culebra
Dolomite
Member
of
the
Rustler
Formation
and
the
Dewey
Lake.
The
GMP
focused
primarily
on
the
characteriation
of
Culebra
Dolomite
groundwater,
since
the
Culebra
is
the
first
continuous
water­
bearing
zone
above
the
waste
repository
horizon
and
is
the
most
transmissive
hydrologic
unit
in
the
WlPP
area.

Because
Culebra
groundwater
chemistry
is
extremely
variable
across
the
WIPP
site,
areawide
background
values
for
groundwater
constituents
could
not
be
established.
Instead,
background
groundwater
quality
was
defined
for
each
individual
well.
A
minimum
of
four
separate
rounds
of
data
from
a
well
was
required
to
establish
the
background
ground­
water
quality
at
that
well.
Preliminary
analysis
categorized
GMP
data
into
three
groups
based
on
the
frequency
of
detection
and
the
proximity
of
detections
to
MDLs.
The
three
groups
are
as
follows:

Major
Cations
and
Anions.
Constituents
that
collectively
make
up
greater
than
99
percent
of
the
dissolved
solids.
These
constituents
are
generatly
detected
at
concentrations
that
are
well
above
the
MOL.

Minor
Cations,
Trace
Metals,
Anions,
and
Indicator
Parameters.
Constituents
with
concentrations
that
are
generally
less
than
10
mglL
in
groundwater.
A
substantial
amount
of
the
data
are
below
the
MDL,
and
those
detected
concentrations
are
generally
close
to
the
MDL.

Organic
Compounds.
Include
VOCs,
SVOCs,
pesticides,
and
PCBs
(all
of
the
parameters
induded
in
40
CFR
5
264,
Appendix
IX).
Very
few
detections
of
these
compounds
were
observed
in
GMP
data.

Given
the
three
data
groups
defined
above,
background
concentrations
were
determined
and
reported
in
the
following
manner:

A
95th
UTL
or
95th
percentile
confidence
interval
based
on
the
distribution
type
was
computed
for
every
major
constituent
from
each
well.
Thus,
the
expected
background
concentration
for
a
major
constituent
at
a
given
well
is
represented
by
a
95
percent
confidence
intewal.

The
95th
UTL
for
most
minor
constituents
could
not
be
calculated
due
to
the
large
number
of
NDs;
thus,
the
background
concentration
range
for
a
minor
constituent
at
a
given
well
is
represented
by
the
observed
95th
percentile
concentration
range
based
on
MDLs
for
that
parameter
at
that
well.

Prior
to
the
determination
of
background
concentration
values,
the
GMP
data
were
evaluated
for
trends.
Trend
analysis
was
necessary
to
determine
if
any
concentrations
7­
3
1997
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
DOEMllPP
98­
2225
were
changing
with
time
due
to
natural
(or
non­
WlPP
related)
causes.
The
procedure
used
to
determine
background
water
quality
is
depen­
dent
on,
or
somewhat
controlled
by,
the
natura
of
the
concentration/
time
relationship.
In­
general,
temporal
trends
in
concentrations
were
not
found
in
#$
e
GMP
data,
and
the
procedure
used
to
establish
background
water
quality
reflected
this
finding.
I
Additional
sampling
rounds
at
each
GMP
well
may
provide
more
insight
into
potentiat
trends
in
water
quality.

The
GMP
data
were
also
evaluated
for
potential
outliers.
Potential
outliers
were
evaiuated
through
visual
examination
only.
If
a
value
appeared
to
be
an
outlier
by
visual
examination,
an
additional
observation
was
performed
to
estimate
if
that
value
was
within
G
O
percent
of
its
nearest
neighbor
or
if
it
was
due
to
routine
analytical
uncertainty.
Only
four
values
were
actually
excluded
from
the
major
and
minor
constituent
data
set
prior
to
the
establishment
of
background
concentration
summary
statistics
and
box­
and­
whisker
plots
{Figures
7.12
through
7.72).

The
following
are
the
specific
findings
and
conclusions
of
the
baseline
study:

Some
constituents
at
several
wells,
including
WQSP­
1,
WQSP­
2,
WQSP­
3,
WQSP­
5,
WQ8P­
6,
and
WQSP­
GA
show
potential
concentration
trends
However,
in
almost
every
case
the
trend
is
within
the
range
of
expected
analytical
uncertainty,
or
the
trend
is
not
supported
by
charge­
balance
considerations
or
by
similar
trends
in
other
constituents,
such
as
TDS.

9
Wells
WQSP­
4,
WQSP­
5,
and
WQSP­
6
exhibit
concentrations
of
several
para­
meters
that
decrease
significantly
from
the
first
to
the
second
or
later
sampling
rounds.
This
may
indicate
that
the
first
sample
is
not
representative,
possibly
due
to
incomplete
well
development
and
that
the
wells
are
"cleaning
up"
from
the
initial
well
installation
process.
Background
groundwater
quality
was
successfully
defined
for
seven
wells.
Back­
ground
concentrations
for
major
and
minor
cations,
anions,
and
indicator
parameters
were
e@
blished
for
Culebra
Dolomite
and
Dewey
Lake
groundwater.
Although
the
background
concentrations
of
many
minor
constituents
are
uncertain,
the
baseline
report
documents
the
"expected"
values
for
these
constituents,
if
similar
analytical
tech­
niques
are
used
in
future
sampling
efforts.

Hazardous
organic
compounds
are
not
present
in
groundwater
in
the
vicinity
of
the
WlPP
site.
Detections
of
these
compounds
are
very
infrequent,
and
the
majority
of
detected
compounds
are
typical
laboratory
contaminants
as
defined
by
the
EPA.
Some
of
the
occurrences
may
also
be
related
to
well
installation
or
sampling
practices.

Specific
details
on
statistical
methods
and
formulas
used
to
reach
these
conclusions
can
be
found
in
DOEMllPP
98­
2285,
"Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
RCRA
Background
Groundwater
Quality
Base
line
Report."

Groundwater
Level
Surveillance
In
October
1988,
WlPP
was
tasked
with
conducting
a
groundwater
level
surveillance
program.
Seventy­
seven
well
bores
are
used
to
perform
surveillance
of
seven
water­
bearing
zones
in
the
WlPP
area.
The
two
zones
of
primary
interest
are
the
Culebra
and
Magenta
members
of
the
Rustler
formation.
Fifty­
nine
measurements
are
taken
in
the
Culebra;
and
ten,
in
the
Magenta.
Three
measurements
each
are
taken
in
the
Dewey
Lake
and
Santa
Rosa
formations.
Two
measurements
are
taken
in
the
Rustler/
Salado
contact.
One
measurement
each
is
taken
in
Bell
Canyon,
Forty­
niner,
and
an
unnamed
lower
member.
Locatiort&
of
groundwater
level
surveillance
sites
arszictured
in
Figure
7.2.

Five
well
bores
are
configured
to
allow
monitor­
ing
of
more
than
one
formation.
These
are
H­
01
CulebralMagenta,
H­
03d
Dewey
Lake/
Forty­
niner,
H­
16
Dewey
Lakehnnamed
lower
7­
4
1997
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
DOElWtPP
98­
2225
member,
WIPP­
25
CulebralMagenta,
and
WIPP­
27
CulebralMagenta.

Groundwater
surface
elevations
in
the
vicinity
of
WlPP
may
be
influenced
by
site
activities
such
as
pumping
tests
for
site
characterization,
water
quality
sampling,
or
shaft
sealing.
Other
influences
on
groundwater
surface
elevations
may
be
caused
by
natural
groundwater
level
fluctuations
and
industrial
influences
from
agriculture,
mining,
and
resource
exploration.

Groundwater
elevation
measurements
in
the
Culebra
indicate
that
the
generalized
directional
flow
of
groundwater
is
north
to
south
in
the
vicinity
of
WIPP
(Figure
7.3).
Regional
groundwater
levels
taken
'
in
43
Culebra
observation
wells
with
more
than
four
data
points
for
the
year
show
increases
in
water
levels
occurred
in
26
wells
and
17
wells
showed
a
decrease
in
water
levels
over
the
period
of
January
1997
through
December
1997.
During
this
period
23
wells
had
net
water
level
increases
or
decreases
of
less
than
one
foot
Total
fluctuation
of
more
than
one
foot
in
groundwater
levels
occurred
in
33
of
the
wells.
Nine
wells
with
fluctuations
of
more
than
one
foot
(WQSP­
1
through
WQSP­
6,
H­
19b0,
H­
18,
and
H­
14)
may
have
been
influenced
by
groundwater
quality
sampling
activities.
Four
wells
(ERDA
[United
States
Energy
Research
and
Development
Administration]­
9,
WIPP­
18,
WIPP­
19,
WIPP­
21,
and
WIPP­
22)
may
have
been
influenced
by
site
activities.

Water
level
increases
originating
to
the
south
of
the
site
in
the
H­
9
area
and
extending
up
gradient
toward
the
site
are
currently
unexplained.
Studies
are
currently
being
conducted
to
try
and
explain
the
anomalies.

Groundwater
flow
directions
in'
the
Magenta
appear
to
be
generally
from
an
east
to
west
direction
across
the
WIPP
site
(Figure
7.4).
Regional
groundwater
level
measurements
taken
in
the
Magenta
dolomite
indicate
that
water
levels
are
increasing
in
wells
located
near
the
center
of
the
site,
while
water
levels
near
or
outside
the
WlPP
boundary
appear
to
be
relatively
stable.
One
well
H­
01
has
had
anomalus
water
level
increases
and
appears
to
be
influencing
the
wells
in
the
immediate
vicinity
(H­
2bl
and
H­
3bl).
The
cause
is
as
yet
undetermined.

7­
5
1997
Annual
Site
Environmental
Report
DOEMllPP
98­
2225
'­
A
­N­

Figure
7.1
­
Water
Quality
Sampling
Program
Sample
Wells
­
1997
7­
6
Attachment
D.
3
Waste
Activity
Documents
Reviewed
c
.
Effective
Date:
o
m
5197
WP
05­
WA.
02
Revision
0
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
Cognizant
Section:
Waste
Operations
Approved
By:

Cognizant
Department:
Operations
Approved
By:
Jeff
Cotton
Signature
on
file
C.
E.
Conway
Signature
on
file
WlPP
Waste
information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS
AND
ABBREVIATIONS
.............................................................................
iii
1
.O
lNTRODUCTlON
....................................................................................................
1
2.0
SCOPE
...................................................................................................................
1
3.0
RESPONSIBILITIES
...............................................................................................
2
3.1
Waste
Operations
..........................................................................................
2
Resource
Conservation
and
Recoverv
Act
Permittinq
...................................
4
Qualitv
and
Rewlatorv
Assurance
................................................................
4
Proiect
Record
Services
.................................................................................
4
h­
lformation
Svstems
Development
................................................................
4
3.6
Technical
Traininq
.........................................................................................
5
TRU
waste
Proqrams
....................................................................................
5
Department
of
Enercrv/
Car~
sbad
Area
Office..
................................................
5
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.7
3.8
4.0
ACCESS
......................................................................................................
5
4.1
User
Access
...................................................................................................
6
5.0
W
l
S
COMPONENT?
...........................................................................................
6
5.1
Administration
................................................................................................
7
5.1
.1
Administrative
Tables
..........................................................................
7
5.1
2
User
Administration
.............................................................................
7
5.1.3
Data
~~~i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
.............................................................................
7
5.1
­4
Security
................................................................................................
7
5.2
Characterization
Module
................................................................................
8
5.3
Certification
Module
.......................................................................................
8
5.4
Shippino
Module
............................................................................................
9
5.5
hventorV
Module
...........................................................................................
9
6.0
US"
THE
9
6.1
Electronic
Data
Entrv
­
Characterization
Module
...........................................
9
6.2
Database
Use
in
APProvinQ
the
WSPF
............................................
10
6.3
Manual
Data
Entrv
­
Characterization
Module
.............................................
11
6.4
Review
and
Approval
of
Characterization
Data
Entries
...............................
11
6.5
Electronic
Data
Entw
­
Certification
Module
................................................
11
6.6
Manual
Data
Entrv
­
Certification
Module
....................................................
12
6.7
Review
and
Approval
of
Certification
Data
Entries
......................................
12
6.8
Electronic
Data
Entw
­
ShiPPinq
Module
.....................................................
12
6.9
Manual
Data
EntrV
­
ShiPPina
Module
.........................................................
13
6.10
Review
and
Approval
of
Shippina
Data
Entries
...........................................
13
6.1
1
Shipment
Receipt
Data
................................................................................
13
6.12
Barcode
Data
Check
of
Shipment
­
Received
Containers
...........................
13
6.13
Shipment
Approval
.......................................................................................
14
6.14
Recordins
Overpack
Information
.................................................................
14
.................................................................................................
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
6.1
5
Barcode
Data
Entry
­
Location
of
DrumlAssemblies
....................................
15
6.1
6
Container
Disposal
Data
..............................................................................
15
7.0
SETTING
UP
OTHER
SITES
TO
USE
THE
WWlS
..............................................
15
8.0
EXCEPTIONS
AND
UNRESOLVED
SAFETY
QUESTION
DETERMINATIONS..
16
9.0
DATA
CHANGE
CONTROL
17
..................................................................................

10.0
W
l
S
PROGRAM
REPORTS
17
17
I
O
.
1
Printing
Standardized
Reports
.....................................................................
38
10.2
Shipment
Summaw
Report
~

.........................................................................
10.3
Nuclide
Report
18
18
10.4
Waste
Emplacement
Report
........................................................................
10.5
Headspace
Gas
Concentration
Report
........................................................
18
19
10.6
Requlatow
Reporting:
Biennial
Reporting
Input
Report
..............................
..............................................................................

.............................................................................................

11
.O
W
l
S
PROGRAM
RECORDS
19
19
11
.I
Backup
and
Archivins
Requirements
...........................................................
.............................................................................

12.0
SITE­
DERIVED
WASTE
29
........................................................................................

13.0
TRAINING
FOR
THE
WWlS
PROGRAM
20
.............................................................

14.0
REFERENCES
20
......................................................................................................

Attachment
1
­
WWlS
Access
Request
Form
22
................................................................

23
Attachment
2
­
WWlS
User
Access
Authorization
Levels
.............................................

24
Attachment
3
­
WWlS
Access
Notification
Form
...........................................................

Attachment
4
­
Shipping
Review
of
Cellulose,
Plastics
and
Rubber
.............................
25
iii
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
ACRONYMS
AND
ABBREVlATlONS
CAO
Carlsbad
Area
Office
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
DOE
Department
of
Energy
EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency
ID
Identification
ISD
Information
Systems
Development
NMED
New
Mexico
Environment
Department
NRC
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
Q&
RA
Quality
and
Regulatory
Assurance
RCRA
SWB
Standard
Waste
Box
TRAMPAC
TRU
Transuranic
TRUPACT­
ti
voc
Volatile
Organic
Compound
WAC
Waste
Acceptance
Criteria
WID
Waste
Isolation
Division
WlPP
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
WSPF
Waste
Stream
Profile
Form
W
l
S
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
TRUPACT­
II
Authorized
Methods
for
Payload
Control
Transuranic
Package
Transporter
Model
II
iv
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(WIPP)
Waste
Information
System
(WWIS)
Program
describes
and
details
the
methods
to
be
used
to
implement
the
WWlS
database
activities.

The
WWlS
is
specified
and
required
by
the
Compliance
Certification
Application
for
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(DOEKAO
1996­
21
84,
Title
40,
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
[CFR],
Section
191
);
the
Transuranic
Waste
Characterization
Quality
Assurance
Program
Plan
(CAO
94­
1
01
0);
the
WIPP
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Chapter
C,
Waste
Analysis
Plan
(DOEMIPP
91­
005);
and
the
Waste
Acceptance
Criteria
for
the
WlPP
(DO
ENVl
PP­
069).

2.0
SCOPE
This
WWlS
Program
addresses
the
entire
range
of
activities
performed
by
the
WWIS.
Data
received
by
the
WIPP
for
waste
acceptance
purposes
is
used
to
determine
compliance
with
t
h
e
RCRA
Part
B
Permit
Application
and
40
CFR
0194
requirements.
Since
no
physical
analysis
of
waste
will
take
place
at
WIPP,
the
data
management,
review,
and
approval
processes
are
critical
to
ensure
WIPP's
regulatory
compliance.

The
W
l
S
is
an
on­
line
database
system
used
to:

Record
waste
container
characterization
and
certification
data
supplied
by
the
transuranic
(TRU)
waste
generators,
as
required
by
the
WIPP
Waste
Acceptance
Criteria
(WAC),
to
gain
acceptance
for
disposal
at
WlPP
Print
a
Summary
Report
that
provides
a
listing
of
waste
container
characterization
data
for
use
in
review
of
Waste
Stream
Profile
Forms
(WSPF)
associated
with
the
container
characterization
data
Provide
computerized
hold
and
approval
points
for
the
WlPP
data
administrator
regarding
WlPP
acceptance
of
container
characterization
and
certification
data
Communicate
the
approval/
rejection
status
of
characterization
and
certification
data
to
the
generatorkhipper
Record
proposed
shipment
configuration
details
from
the
generatorkhipper
for
containers
that
have
received
WIPP
approval
of
characterization
data
Provide
a
hold
and
approval
point
for
the
WlPP
data
administrator
to
approve
or
reject
the
proposed
shipment
1
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
Communicate
the
approvaI/
rejection
status
of
proposed
shipments
to
the
g
eneratorlsh
i
p
per
Provide
a
Shipment
Report
for
WlPP
personnel
to
verify
the
"as
received"
shipment
against
the
information
listed
on
the
manifest
accompanying
the
shipment,
and
to
verify
that
containers
received
are
those
approved
by
WlPP
for
shipment
Record
the
disposal
location
of
the
containers
when
they
are
placed
in
the
underground
disposal
area
Record
(automatically)
any
changes
made
to
WWIS
data,
record
changes,
and
provide
a
Change
Log
Report
to
identify
changes
that
have
been
made
Provide
required
reports,
which
are
entered
into
the
facility
operating
record
and
kept
as
a
quality
record
for
the
lifetime
of
the
facility
The
above
functions
require
the
interaction
of
several
groups
within
Waste
Operations,
and
with
generatodshipper
sites
and
others,
such
as
internal
and
external
review/
oversight
groups.
­his
program
defines
the
responsibilities
and
activities
for
each
group
of
WWlS
users
at
WIPP.

3.0
RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1
Waste
Operations
The
Waste
Operations
Section
is
the
organization
with
cognizance
over
the
waste
acceptance
and
emplacement
process
at
WIPP.
The
review
and
approval
of
waste
data
is
coordinated
by
Waste
Operations
and
all
records
generated
by
the
review
and
approval
process
are
controlled
by
Waste
Operations
until
transferred
to
Project
Records
Services.

The
WWlS
data
administrator
is
responsible
for
establishing
access
authorization
to
the
WWlS
for
generatodshipper
sites;
approving
user
characterization
data,
certification
data,
proposed
shipping
data,
and
maintenance
of
Administrative
Reference
Tables
used
in
WWlS
operation;
deleting
generator
data
records
when
requested
by
the
generator
(the
WWIS
Change
Log
Records
record
deletions
archived
as
a
part
of
the
overall
database
process);
and
assisting
users
with
problems
associated
with
the
application.

2
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
The
data
administrator
is
also
responsible
for
the
following
activities
regarding
WWIS
operation:

D
D
*

I
D
Determine
the
need
for
access,
assign
user
identifications
and
enter
them
into
the
W
l
S
Determine
acceptability
of
waste
container
data
submitted
by
the
generator
in
the
WWlS
Characterization
Module
for
WSPF
approval
Designate
approved
WSPF
numbers
in
the
WWlS
Administration
Tables
Determine
acceptability
of
waste
container
data
submitted
by
the
generator
in
the
WWlS
Certification
Module
Enter
needed
data
into
€he
Reference
Data
Tables
of
the
WWlS
Process
WSPF(
s)
to
the
requirements
of
the
Waste
Stream
Profile
Form
Review
and
Approval
Program
(WP
05­
WA.
03)

Produce
reports
from
the
WWlS
Enter
approved
changes
to
the
W
I
S
data
Assist
generators
with
data
entry
problems
Serve
as
the
contact
point
at
WlPP
for
the
generator
sites
regarding
data
transmittal
and
submittal
Hazardous
Waste
Operations
is
responsible
for:

Initially
receiving
the
TRUPACT­
II
shipment
Signing
the
manifest
Reviewing
WWlS
data
to
determine
if
it
agrees
with
information
on
the
Shipment
Manifest
Notifying
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
of
the
manifest
review
results
Resolving
manifest
discrepancies
by
working
with
the
WWlS
data
administrator
and
the
generatodshipper
3
WlPP
Waste
information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
The
Waste
Handling
engineer
is
responsible
for
two
primary
entry
inputs
to
the
WWIS:

Recording
acceptance
of
the
shipment
in
the
WWlS
after
verifying
that
the
correct
containers
were
received,
based
on
shipment
information
in
the
WWIS
and
Shipment
Manifest
information
Recording
off­
loaded
container
information
and
container
disposal
locations
'
3.2
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
Permittinq
The
RCRA
Permitting
Section
reviews
each
WSPF
and
the
associated
Characterization
Data
Summary
Report,
then
completes
a
checklist
to
document
that
review
per
WP
05­
WA.
03.
A
specific
focus
of
this
review
is
to
ensure
that
the
requirements
of
the
WlPP
Waste
Analysis
Plan
are
properly
implemented.
RCRA
Permitting
also
performs
periodic
reviews
(on
a
selected
or
"as
necessary"
basis)
of
generator
waste
container
characterization
data
entered
into
the
WWIS.
Cognizant
R
C
W
Permitting
personnel
have
access
to
the
WWIS
database
for
use
in
review
of
administrative
information,
waste
characterization
data,
certification
data,
decay
analysis,
change
log,
inventory,
and
regulatory
reporting.

3.3
Qualitv
and
Recrulatorv
Assurance
Quality
and
Regulatory
Assurance
(Q&
RA)
participates
in
the
review
and
approval
activities
for
the
WSPF
to
verify
that
the
submittal
is
complete
and
properly
signed.
On
a
selective
basis,
Q&
RA
will
review
waste
container
data
submitted
to
WIPP
through
the
WWlS
by
the
generatorkhipper
sites
to
determine
if
the
generator
data
entered
into
the
WWIS
is
complete.

3.4
Proiect
Record
Services
Project
Record
Services
is
responsible
for
t
h
e
retention
of
records
generated
by
the
WlPP
waste
acceptance
process.
Some
of
the
records
generated
by
this
process
will
be
retained
at
the
facility
as
a
part
of
the
operational
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.
Other
records
will
be
sent
to
records
storage.
Criteria
to
define
the
record
retention
times
are
listed
in
the
approved
Records
Inventory
and
Disposition
Schedule
and
the
implementing
procedures
for
each
document.

4
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
3.5
Information
Svstems
DeveloDment
Information
Systems
Development
(ISD)
is
the
support
organization
for
the
VWVIS.
ISD
is
responsible
for
keeping
the
WWlS
functional
and
facilitating
electronic
communications
between
WlPP
and
the
generator
sites.
ISD
also
provides
a
secure
area
for
the
WWlS
server;
performs
nightly,
quarterly,
and
annual
backups
of
system
records;
and
maintains
network
communications.

3.6
Technical
Traininq
The
Human
Resources
Technical
Training
Section
is
responsible
for
controlling
and
maintaining
the
W
I
S
Qualification
Card.
The
qualification
cards
are
used
as
part
of
the
WlPP
qualification
program
and
will
be
maintained,
controlled,
and
retained
per
the
implementing
procedures.
The
Waste
Operations
data
administrator
(the
Subject
Matter
Expert)
will
aid
Technical
Training
personnel
in
the
development
of
the
WWlS
Qualification
Card.

3.7
TRU
Waste
Proarams
The
Engineering
TRU
Waste
Programs
Section
provides
the
cognizant
engineer
(configuration
manager)
for
the
WWlS
Program.
The
cognizant
engineer
is
responsible
for
providing
design
and
configuration
management
for
the
WWlS
database
and
represents
the
primary
source
of
engineering
interface
for
the
WWIS.
Configuration
management
is
addressed
in
approved
Waste
Isolation
Division
(WID)
management
procedures.

3.8
Department
of
EnerclvlCarlsbad
Area
Office
The
Carlsbad
Area
Office
manager
is
responsible
for
granting,
or
suspending,
a
site's
authority
to
certify
TRU
waste
to
the
WAC
(certification
authority)
and
to
use
the
TRUPACT­
II
and
Remote­
Handled
TRU
72­€
3
Cask
(transportation
authority)
based
upon
an
assessment
of
their
documented
TRU
waste
program
and
its
implementation.
After
approving
the
required
generatorkhipper
plans,
the
CAO,
together
with
the
managing
and
operating
contractor,
will
perform
certification
audits
of
the
generator/
shipper
sites
to
assess
the
implementation
of,
and
compliance
with,
the
approved
plans.
Based
upon
acceptable
results
of
the
certification
audit,
the
CAO
will
grant
TRU
waste
certification
authority
and
transportation
authority
to
the
site.

The
CAO
is
also
responsible
for
review
and
approvalldenial
of
generatorlshipper
site
requests
for
exceptions
(variances)
to
the
WlPP
operations
and
safety
requirements.
The
CAO
cannot
approve
exceptions
to
requirements
that
are
confrored
by
others,
such
as
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
WRC),
for
transportation
or
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
and
ine
New
Mexico
Environment
Department
(NMED)
for
the
RCRA
component
of
TRU­
mixed
waste,
without
first
obtaining
changes
to
the
controlling
permits.

5
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
4.0
WWlS
ACCESS
The
hardware
for
the
W
l
S
system
is
located
in
a
controlled
access
area
within
the
WlPP
facility.
Computer
access
to
the
W
l
S
database
is
controlled
by
means
of
user
identifications
and
passwords
assigned
to
users
having
a
need
to
use
the
waste
information
system.
A
user
must
obtain
authorization
from
the
WlPP
data
administrator
before
being
allowed
to
log
onto
the
electronic
system.
Prior
to
granting
user
access,
the
data
administrator
will
instruct
potential
users
in
the
proper
use
of
the
WWIS.
When
the
authorization
is
granted,
read/
write
access
restrictions
are
also
imposed
on
the
user
to
ensure
that
the
integrity
of
the
data
within
the
database
is
maintained.

4.1
User
Access
The
WWlS
data
administrator
receives
requests
for
system
access
from
users
on
the
WWIS
Access
Request
Form
(Attachment
I).

Generatorkhipper
sites
must
be
certified
by
the
CAOWIPP
prior
to
entering
waste
data
into
the
W
l
S
for
review
by
the
WIPP.
The
data
administrator
reviews
the
WWlS
Access
Request
Form
and
approves
or
disapproves
the
requested
authorization
reason
for
access
(designated
in
Attachment
2),
signs
the
WWlS
Access
Request
Fom,
and
forwards
the
request
to
the
Waste
Operations
manager
for
final
approval.

After
obtaining
the
approval
of
the
Waste
Operations
manager,
the
data
administrator
provides
instruction
to
the
requestor
on
the
proper
use
of
the
WWIS,
enters
the
access
type
onto
the
WWlS
Access
Request
Form,
and
makes
the
necessary
entries
into
the
WWIS
Administration
Reference
Tables
to
allow
the
user
access
to
the
WWIS.
Access
restrictions
are
imposed
as
defined
in
the
Software
Requirements
Specification
and
the
Software
Design
Description,
and
are
documented
on
the
approved
WWlS
Access
Request
Form.

The
data
administrator
will
advise
the
user
when
the
approved
access
to
the
WWlS
has
been
established
by
providing
the
user
with
a
copy
of
the
signed
WWlS
Access
Request
Form.
The
signed
W
l
S
Access
Request
Form
will
be
transmitted
to
the
user
as
an
attachment
to
the
W
l
S
Access
Notification
Form
(Attachment
3).
The
data
administrator
will
file
a
copy
of
the
WWlS
Access
Notification
Form
and
attached
W
I
S
Access
Request
Form
in
the
WWlS
project
files.

The
data
administrator
will
revoke
any
access
privileges
at
the
request
of
the
user
or
Waste
Operations
manager
by
accessing
the
Administrative
Reference
Tables
and
inserting
an
access
termination
date
equal
to
the
date
of
revocation.

6
WIPP
Waste
information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
5.0
WlS
COMPONENTS
The
W
I
S
database
is
a
complex,
multifaceted
database
system
designed
to
perform
functions
ranging
from
retaining
simple
data;
providing
a
platform
for
the
review/
approval
of
generator/
shipper
sites
waste
information;
tracking
of
waste
containers
by
categories;
combining
containers
into
packages
and
shipments;
and
to
verify
emplacement
location
of
the
containers
in
the
repository.
To
fulfill
the
variety
of
tasks
assigned
to
the
W
I
S
,
the
database
system
is
divided
into
several
modules.
These
modules,
other
components,
and
organizationallindividual
responsibilities
are
described
below.

5.1
Administration
5.1.1
Administrative
Tables
The
WWIS
has
an
extensive
library
of
Administration
Tables.
These
tables,
used
by
the
data
administrator,
contain
complexwide
requirements
specified
in
DOENVIPP­
069
and
CAO­
94­
1010.
Also
included
in
the
tables
are
site­
specific
information
listed
in
CAO­
approved
generatorlshipper
site
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plans,
Certification
Plans,
TRUPACT­
II
Authorized
Methods
for
Payload
Control
(TRAMPAC),
and
data
supplied
to
WlPP
regarding
individual
containers,
waste
streams,
and
shipping
informat
ion.

5.1.2
User
Administration
The
user
administration
function
is
the
responsibility
of
the
Waste
Operations
data
administrator.
The
data
administrator
is
responsible
for
maintaining
WWlS
data
pertaining
to
individual
users
of
the
system.
This
includes
updating
user
data
files
(information
about
the
users),
setting
up
access
for
new
users
to
the
application,
instructing
personnel
in
the
proper
use
of
the
W
I
S
,
assisting
users
with
problems
associated
with
the
application,
defining
the
extent
of
use
of
the
system
for
each
user,
and
deleting
users
from
the
application.

5.1.3
Data
Administration
The
data
administrator
is
responsible
for
determining
user
access
to
the
data,
administering
Reference
Tables
used
systemwide,
producing
reports
from
the
Reference
Tables,
and
logging
changes.
The
WWlS
is
capable
of
producing
several
standardized
and
specialized
reports
concerning
the
waste
data
supplied
by
the
generatorkhipper
site.
Internal
and
external
requests
for
these
reports
will
be
processed
by
the
data
administrator
on
the
basis
of
the
nature
of
the
request,
the
availability
of
resources
to
perform
the
request,
and
the
approval
of
Waste
Operations
management.
The
data
administrator
updates
tables
containing
limit
and
reference
data
and
provides
change
information
to
the
Change
Log.

7
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
5.1.4
Security
The
Waste
Operations
data
administrator
controls
access
to
the
databases
and
data
through
passwords,
and
controls
access
to
the
data
at
the
record
level.
AIf
data
transmitted
between
the
W
l
S
server
located
at
the
WlPP
and
the
WWlS
and
elsewhere
will
be
via
the
limited­
access
Departmen1
of
Enerav
Business
Network
/DOE­
BN).
Users
are
assigned
access
authorization
levels
as
listed
in
Attachment
2.
Users
are
only
allowed
to
view
data
pertaining
to
their
access
authorization
level
and/
or
site.

5.2
Characterization
Module
The
Characterization
Module
allows
the
generatodshipper
to
enter
specific
container
information
to
be
used
to
validate
the
characterization
activities
of
the
generator
site
for
the
data
summary
on
the
WSPF
submitted
for
WlPP
approval.
Approval
of
the
WSPF
will
be
required
before
waste
containers
associated
with
the
waste
stream
can
be
approved
and
accepted.

Required
information
fields
for
the
characterization
data
input
are
indicated
by
a
shaded
entry
box
on
the
interactive
input
screen
for
manual
input.
For
electronic
data
input,
data
information
is
defined
in
data
structure
tables
included
in
the
WWlS
User's
Guide.

After
the
data
passes
the
limit
and
edit
checks
and
is
reviewed
by
the
W
l
S
data
administrator,
it
is
considered
"acknowledged"
data.
An
entry
is
made
by
the
WlPP
data
administrator,
making
the
data
available
for
viewing
to
the
generator
only
through
the
Certification
Module
pull­
down
screen.
The
generatodshipper
is
denied
any
further
write
access
to
the
information
fields
of
the
Characterization
Module
at
this
point.

This
module
has
provisions
to
generate
a
WWlS
Waste
Characterization
Data
Report,
which
contains
a
listing
of
the
characterization
data
for
the
containers
covered
by
a
WSPF.
A
copy
of
this
report
will
be
attached
to
the
WSPF
to
support
the
review
of
the
information.

Container
data
not
accepted
by
W
l
S
in
this
module
will
not
be
retained
by
the
WVVIS.
A
Bad
Data
Report
will
be
created
and
will
explain
the
reason(
s)
for
rejection.
Rejected
data
will
require
resubmittal
to
WlPP
prior
to
further
consideration.

5.3
Certification
Module
The
Certification
Module
allows
for
generator
transmittal
and
WlPP
data
administrator
verification
of
submitted
WAC
data.
All
modifications
to
the
data
will
be
tracked
in
a
Change
Log.
In
this
module,
the
data
administrator
will
accept
or
reject
certification
8
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
data
and
provide
verification
reports.
After
acceptance
of
the
submitted
data,
the
WWlS
will
automatically
generate
an
Acceptance
Report.
If
the
submitted
Certification
Module
data
is
rejected,
the
data
administrator
will
generate
a
Rejection
Report
and
notify
the
generatorlshipper
site.

Required
information
fields
for
certification
data
input
are
indicated
by
a
shaded
entry
box
on
the
interactive
input
screen
for
manual
input.
For
electronic
data
input,
data
information
is
defined
in
data
tables
included
in
the
WWlS
User's
Guide.

After
the
data
passes
the
limit
and
edit
checks
and
a
review
by
the
W
l
S
data
administrator,
it
is
considered
"acknowledged"
data
and
an
entry
is
made
by
the
WIPP
data
administrator.
The
generatorkhipper
is
denied
any
further
write
access
to
the
information
fields
of
the
Certification
Module
at
this
point.

5.4
Shitminu
Module
The
Shipping
Module
allows
the
generatorlshipper
to
propose
a
shipment
configuration
for
WIPP
approval.
The
proposed
shipment
information
is
entered
into
the
WWlS
and
subjected
to
data
limit
checks
to
determine
if
the
shipping
requirements
of
the
TRAMPAC
and
WIPP
WAC
are
met
by
the
proposed
shipment.

After
passing
these
electronic
data
checks,
the
shipping
information
is
reviewed
by
WIPP
operating
personnel.
If
everything
is
in
order,
the
shipment
data
is
approved
and
the
generatorlshipper
may
proceed
with
the
shipment.

This
module
generates
the
Shipment
Summary
Report
used
by
Waste
Operations
to
verify
that
the
correct
containers
have
been
shipped.

5.5
lnventorv
Module
The
inventory
Data
Module
is
designed
for
WIPP
to
record
what
containers
have
been
received,
the
receipt
date,
and
the
disposal
locations
for
those
containers.

This
module
generates
the
Container
Emplacement
Report,
which
will
be
kept
as
part
of
the
facility
operating
record.
The
Inventory
Data
Module
also
generates
other
reports
concerning
the
disposed
waste
inventory,
including
reports
on
nuclides,
container
data,
headspace
gas,
and
biennial
information.

6.0
USING
THE
WWlS
Each
module
and
component
described
above
requires
input
from
several
users,
such
as
the
generatorkhipper,
data
administrator,
and
others.
From
these
modules
and
Administrative
Tables,
the
WWIS
has
the
capability
of
generating
various
reports
to
track
the
input
from
t
h
e
generator/
shipper
sites.
These
reports
are
listed
and
described
9
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
in
WP
05­
WA.
01,
WlPP
TRU
Waste
Data
Management
Plan.
The
methods
to
be
employed
in
the
completion
of
each
module
of
the
WWlS
database
are
described
and
defined
below.

6.1
Electronic
Data
Entry
­
Characterization
Module
Prior
to
review
of
generatorlshipper
characterization
data,
the
data
administrator
will
ensure
that
the
DOE/
CAO
has
granted
certification
and
transportation
authority
to
the
generatorjshipper
site
as
stated
in
Section
3.8.

Generatorskhippers
must
notify
the
WWlS
data
administrator
of
new
WSPF
numbers
prior
to
inputting
Characterization
Module
container
data
associated
with
that
profile
number.
After
notification
of
the
new
numbers,
the
data
administrator
will
enter
the
proposed
WSPF
numbers
in
the
WWlS
Administration
Reference
files,
but
will
leave
the
approval
date
blank
(indicating
that
the
WSPF
is
not
yet
approved).
No
generatorlshipper
site
waste
data
will
be
accepted
by
the
WWlS
database
until
the
data
administrator
has
updated
the
Administrative
Reference
Tables
to
include
the
WSPF
number.

Electronic
transfer
of
characterization
data
is
granted
to
sites
that
have
an
electronic
waste
information
system.
The
data
from
the
user
system
must
be
formatted
to
be
consistent
with
the
WWlS
data
structures
as
listed
in
the
WWlS
User's
Manual
(SP­
WO­
WlS­
002).
Before
data
is
transmitted,
the
user
system
formatting
wit1
be
verified
to
ensure
integrity.
The
WWlS
data
administrator
will
transmit
the
system
format
and
assist
the
user
with
the
setup
of
the
data
structure.
The
WWlS
system
performs
edit
and
range
checks
on
the
characterization
data
and
identifies
all
errors
by
waste
container
identification
number.
After
electronic
transmittal
of
characterization
data
to
the
W
I
S
,
the
generators/
shippers
are
only
allowed
to
view
their
packages
and/
or
print
error
reports.
After
the
characterization
data
has
passed
alf
range
and
edit
checks
and
has
been
approved
by
the
Waste
Operations
data
administrator,
the
shipper
will
receive
a
message
to
that
effect.

6.2
WWlS
Database
Use
in
Amrovinu
the
WSPF
The
review
and
approval
of
WSPFs
are
governed
by
WlPP
approved
procedures.
After
receipt
of
the
WSPF
from
the
generator/
shipper
site,
Waste
Operations
routes
a
copy
of
each
WSPF
and
associated
WWlS
Characterization
Data
Summary
Reports
from
the
WWlS
to
RCRA
Permitting
and
Q&
RA.
The
Summary
Report
provides
reviewers
with
a
listing
of
waste
container
characterization
data
associated
with
the
WSPF.
These
organizations
review
the
form
against
requirements
of
the
WlPP
Waste
Analysis
Plan,
the
Quality
Assurance
Program
Plan,
and
the
WlPP
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description.

After
the
reviewers
have
completed
their
reviews,
a
meeting
may
be
called
by
Waste
Operations
if
any
profile
deficiencies
are
noted.
Waste
Operations
interfaces
with
the
10
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
generatodshipper
to
resolve
any
noted
deficiencies.
After
all
WlPP
reviewers
concur
that
the
WSPF
is
acceptable,
Waste
Operations
notifies
the
generatorlshipper
of
the
WSPF
approval.
The
WlPP
data
administrator
makes
an
approved
date
entry
into
the
WWlS
data
Reference
Tables,
causing
the
program
to
recognize
the
approved
profile
number.
This
entry
is
necessary
for
the
data
to
be
accepted
into
the
WWIS
Certification
Module.

When
the
WSPF
is
routed
for
review,
it
is
tracked
by
a
routing
slip
and
is
recorded
into
a
log
of
the
WSPFs
received
by
the
WlPP
in
accordance
with
WP
05­
WA.
03.

A
critical
part
of
waste
stream
approval
is
the
WlPP
RCRA­
Specific
Generator
Site
Waste
Screening
and
Acceptance
Audit
Program
Plan,
(WP
02­
PC.
01).
After
the
initial
audit
and
approval,
annual
audits
are
performed
for
sites
shipping
waste
to
WIPP.
The
data
administrator
ensures
that
the
waste
generator
has
successfully
passed
the
scheduled
CAO
certification
and
WlPP
RCRA­
specific
audits
and
resolved
any
significant
deficiencies
before
approving
a
WSPF
from
that
site.

6.3
Manual
Data
Entrv
­
Characterization
Module
Manual
characterization
data
entry
access
is
granted
to
generatodshipper
sites
that
have
limited
or
small
quantities
of
TRU
waste,
or
that
do
not
have
an
electronic
information
system
but
do
have
access
to
the
WWlS
database
capabilities.
Manual
data
entry
allows
a
generatorlshipper
site
without
an
electronic
waste
information
system
to
enter
waste
data
directly
into
the
various
blocks
of
the
characterization
data
entry
screens.
Although
the
manually
entered
data
process
is
much
slower
than
that
of
electronic
data
transfer,
the
entered
waste
data
receives
the
same
editllimit
checks
and
reviews
as
electronic
data
transfers.

Generatordshippers
must
notify
the
W
l
S
data
administrator
of
new
WSPF
numbers
prior
to
inputting
Certification
Module
container
data
associated
with
that
profile
number.
After
notification
of
the
new
WSPF
numbers,
the
data
administrator
will
enter
the
proposed
numbers
in
the
WWlS
Administration
Reference
fifes,
but
will
leave
the
approval
date
blank
(indicating
that
the
profile
is
not
yet
approved).
No
generatodshipper
site
waste
data
will
be
accepted
by
the
WWlS
database
until
the
data
admini
strator
has
updat
ed
the
Admin
ist
rat
iv
Refer
ence
Table
S.
e
11
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
6.4
Review
and
ADDroval
of
Characterization
Data
Entries
The
data
administrator
periodically
reviews
container
Characterization
Module
data
that
have
passed
the
WWlS
datallimit
checks.
The
review
requirements
are
at
the
discretion
of
the
data
administrator
but
are
primarily
performed
for
consistencv
with
the
Waste
Stream
Profile
Form.

After
review
of
the
data,
the
data
administrator
will
indicate
acceptance
or
rejection
of
each
container
characterization
record
on
the
acceptheject
screen
feature
in
the
WWIS.
If
the
record
is
rejected,
the
data
administrator
will
input
the
reason
for
the
rejection
into
the
WWlS
and
notify
the
generator/
shipper
of
the
reason
for
rejection.

6.5
Electronic
Data
Entrv
­
Certification
Module
The
electronic
transfer
of
certification
data
is
granted
to
sites
that
have
electronic
waste
information
system
capabilities.
To
use
the
WWlS
electronic
data
option,
the
data
from
the
user
system
must
be
formatted
to
be
consistent
with
the
WWlS
data
structures.
Before
data
are
transmitted,
the
user
system
formatting
will
be
verified
by
acceptance
testing
of
the
generatorishipper
electronic
data
system
to
ensure
integrity
and
compatibility
with
the
WlPP
WWlS
server.

The
WWlS
system
performs
edit
and
range
checks
on
the
data
and
identifies
errors
by
waste
container
identification
number.
After
electronic
transmittal
of
certification
data
to
the
WVVIS,
generators/
shippers
can
only
view
their
certification
packages
and/
or
print
error
reports.
After
the
data
have
passed
all
range
and
edit
checks
and
received
approval
from
the
Waste
Operations
data
administrator,
the
generator
will
receive
an
electronic
message
to
document
the
approval.

6.6
Manual
Data
Entrv
­
Certification
Module
Manual
certification
data
entry
access
is
granted
to
generator/
shipper
sites
which
have
limited
or
small
quantities
of
TRU
waste
or
which
do
not
have
an
electronic
information
system
but
do
have
WWIS
database
capabilities.
Manual
data
entry
allows
a
generator/
shipper
site
without
access
to
an
electronic
waste
information
system
to
enter
waste
data
directly
into
the
various
blocks
of
the
WWlS
Certification
Module
data
entry
screens.
Although
the
manually
entered
data
process
is
much
slower
than
that
of
electronic
data
transfer,
the
entered
waste
data
receives
the
same
edit/
limit
checks
and
reviews
as
electronic
data
transfers.

This
module
is
structured
to
accept
only
data
that
pertains
to
accepted
waste
stream
profiles.
This
allows
the
generatorkhipper
to
enter
waste
container
data
for
approval
of
the
individual
containers.
The
data
will
be
screened
by
the
WWlS
to
perform
limit
checks
for
each
data
entry.
Data
outside
the
range
limits
of
the
WAC
will
be
rejected
12
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
by
the
database.

6.7
Review
and
Approval
of
Certification
Data
Entries
The
data
administrator
will
periodically
review
container
Certification
Module
data
that
have
passed
the
WWlS
datallimit
checks.
The
reviews
are
at
the
discretion
of
the
data
administrator
but
are
primarily
performed
for
consistencv
with
the
Waste
Stream
Profile
A
Form
After
review
of
the
data,
the
data
administrator
will
indicate
acceptance
or
rejection
of
each
container
characterization
record
on
the
accepffreject
screen
feature
in
the
WWIS.
If
the
record
is
rejected,
the
data
administrator
will
input
the
reason
of
the
rejection
into
the
WWIS.
The
W
I
S
automatically
notifies
the
generatorlshipper
site
of
the
rejection.

6.8
Electronic
Data
Entrv
­
ShbDina
Module
The
electronic
transfer
of
shipping
data
will
be
granted
to
sites
that
have
an
electronic
waste
information
system.
The
data
from
the
user
system
must
be
formatted
to
be
consistent
with
the
WWlS
data
structures.
Before
data
are
transmitted,
the
user
system
formatting
will
be
verified
by
acceptance
testing
of
the
generator
electronic
data
system
to
ensure
integrity
and
compatibility
with
the
WlPP
WWIS
server.
Edit
and
range
checks
are
performed
by
the
W
I
S
.
The
data
entered
are
descriptors
by
waste
container
or
dunnage
container
and
include
shipment,
packaging,
and
assembly
information.

6.9
Manual
Data
Entrv
­
ShipDina
Module
Manual
shipping
data
entry
access
is
granted
to
generatorkhipper
sites
which
have
limited
or
small
quantities
of
TRU
waste
or
which
do
not
have
access
to
an
electronic
information
system
but
do
have
WWlS
database
capabilities.
Manual
data
entry
allows
a
generatorkhipper
site
without
an
electronic
waste
information
system
to
enter
waste
data
directly
into
the
fields
of
the
WWlS
Shipping
Module
data
entry
screen.
Although
the
manually
entered
waste
data
process
is
much
slower
than
that
of
electronic
data
transfer,
the
entered
waste
data
receives
the
same
edifflimit
checks
and
reviews
as
electronic
data
transfers.

6.10
Review
and
ApDroval
of
ShiDDina
Data
Entries
After
the
generatorlshipper
site
has
entered
the
required
Shipping
Module
entries,
the
WlPP
data
administrator
will
review
the
data
to
ensure
that
it
is
complete
and
passes
the
WWlS
electronic
data
checks.
The
data
administrator
will
additionally
verify
and
document
on
Attachment
4,
ushipping
Review
of
Cellulose,
Plastics
and
Rubber
13
WlPP
Waste
information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
(CPR),
n
that
the
amount
of
the
material
parameters
contained
in
the
shipment
will
not
cause
the
WlPP
repository
inventory
of
cellulose,
plastics
and
rubber
to
exceed
the
limit
of
2x107
kgs.
After
these
checks
have
been
completed,
the
data
administrator
approves
the
generatorkhipper
site
shipping
data
entries
by
selecting
the
"accept"
field
on
the
WWlS
"ReviewlApprove
Shipment
Information"
screen.
This
approval
allows
the
generatorkhipper
site
to
proceed
with
preparing
the
proposed
shipment
for
transport
to
WIPP.

6.11
Shioment
ReceiDt
Data
Prior
to
bringing
a
TRUPACT­
II
shipment
into
the
Waste
Handling
Building,
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
will
print
a
Shipment
Summary
Report
for
use
in
preparing
for
the
shipment
unloading.
This
report
is
used
by
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
and
Hazardous
Waste
Operations
to
provide
a
summary
of
parameters
important
to
waste
receipt
and
planning
considerations.

6.12
Barcode
Data
Check
of
Shioment
­
Received
Containers
The
following
information
will
normally
be
gathered
using
a
programmed
WWIS
interface
for
downloading
information
to
the
barcode
scanner,
but
the
information
can
be
manually
recorded
and
compared
to
the
information
in
the
Shipment
Summary
Report.
Data
input
to
the
WWlS
can
be
accomplished
by
keyboard
input
of
container
barcode
numbers
and
disposal/
storage
locations.
The
W
l
S
contains
screens
which
allow
manual
input
of
the
inventory
and
location
information
if
the
barcoding
equipment
is
not
available.

The
Waste
Handling
engineer
will
place
the
barcode
scanner
in
the
connect
cradle
and
downtoad
shipment
information
to
the
scanner.

The
Waste
Handling
technician
will
scan
a
container
barcode
from
each
assembly
after
it
is
removed
from
the
TRUPACT­
II.
(The
WWlS
program
will
associate
the
barcoded
container
with
the
seven­
pack
assembly
number
and
any
of
the
remaining
drums
of
the
assembly.)
The
programmed
scanner
will
indicate
if
the
scanned
container
is
listed
in
the
approved
shipment
information.
(After
matching
the
scanned
container
number
with
the
number
in
the
WWIS,
shipment
approval
may
proceed.)

If
the
scanner
identifies
the
container
number
as
incorrect,
the
container
will
be
scanned
again.
If
the
number
is
not
recognized
in
the
second
scanning,
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
will
be
notified.

The
Waste
Handling
engineer
will
notify
the
Waste
Operations
manager
and
Hazardous
Waste
Operations
that
the
shipment
container
number
does
not
agree
with
the
shipment
summary
information.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
Hazardous
Waste
Operations
to
resolve
any
manifest
discrepancies
by
working
with
the
W
l
S
data
14
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
administrator
and
the
generatorkhipper.

6.13
ShiDment
Approval
The
Waste
Handling
engiileer
will
notify
Hazardous
Waste
Operations
if
the
w
c
d
d
container(
s)
agree
with
the
WWlS
Shipment
Summary
and
obtain
their
recommendation
for
approval
or
disapproval
of
shipment,
based
on
agreement
with
manifest
*formation.

After
ysrifying
agreement
between
the
WWlS
Shipment
Summary
and
the
Hazardous
Was6
Manifest
from
Hazardous
Waste
Operations,
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
will
indicate
acceptance
of
the
shipment
by
selecting
the
shipment
"accept"
screen
festure
of
the
WWIS.
I
f
the
WWIS
Shipment
Summary
and
the
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
are
not
in
agreement,
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
will
notify
the
Waste
Operations
manager
before
making
a
shipment
rejection
entry
into
the
WWlS
(this
is
expected
to
be
a
rare
event).

6.14
Recordina
Overpack
Information
If
Waste
Handling
Operations
finds
it
necessary
to
overpack
waste
containers
(Le.,
loading
corroded,
damaged,
or
contaminated
containers
into
a
larger
container),
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
will
access
the
WWlS
Overpacked
Container
input
screen
and
record
the
overpacked
container
(i.
e.,
drum
or
Standard
Waste
Box
[SWS])
configuration
information.

Disposal
location
information
will
be
recorded,
using
the
same
procedures
used
for
non­
overpacked
containers.

6.15
Barcode
Data
Entrv
­
Location
of
DrumlAssemblies
The
Waste
Handling
engineer
can
establish
valid
storage
locations
(room
and
panel)
by
updating
the
pull­
down
screen
in
the
Inventory
Module
of
the
WWlS
prior
to
disposal.

Waste
containers
may
not
be
taken
underground
for
disposal
until
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
has
accepted
the
shipment,
as
indicated
by
the
Shipment
Approval
in
the
WWIS.
_.

6.16
Container
DisRosal
Data
The
Waste
Handling
engineer
will
place
the
underground
barcode
scanner
in
the
connect
cradle
and
download
shipment
information
to
the
scanner.
The
Waste
Handling
technician
can
enter
the
disposal
location,
including
panel
and
room,
into
the
barcode
scanner
for
each
assembly.

15
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
After
disposal
locations
for
assemblies
of
the
shipment
are
recorded
in
the
barcode
scanner,
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
will
upload
the
location
information
from
the
barcode
scanner
to
the
WWIS.
Data
errors
in
the
module
are
listed
in
the
"Bad
Location"
screen
of
the
WWIS.

After
uploading
the
location
information,
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
will
review
the
bad
location
screen
of
the
WWIS,
if
necessary,
and
correct
any
locations
that
were
found
to
be
incorrect.

The
data
administrator
will
print
a
Waste
Container
Emplacement
Report
weekly
to
document
updated
emplacements
performed
during
the
reporting
period.
This
report
is
added
by
the
data
administrator
to
the
WWlS
Operational
Log
and
retained
at
WlPP
for
the
operational
life
of
the
facility.

7.0
SETTING
UP
OTHER
SITES
TO
USE
THE
WWlS
The
Waste
Operations
data
administrator
provides
the
generatorlshipper
sites
with
several
levels
of
assistance
in
setting
up
generator/
shipper
sites
with
the
WWlS
database.
Services
provided
to
the
generatorlshipper
sites
include:

a
a
a
a
e
e
8.0
Providing
users'
computers
with
the
necessary
W
l
S
client
files
Making
appropriate
entries
in
the
WlPP
W
l
S
to
establish
identifications
for
the
designated
sites
and
users
Providing
data
structure
tables
for
sites
to
populate
with
site
waste
data
(for
electronic
data
entry)

Providing
WWlS
database
user
training
(on­
the­
job
training)
for
generatorlshipper
site
data
entry
personnel
Providing
the
generator/
shipper
sites
with
a
user's
manual
Providing
site
support
visits
by
the
data
administrator
and
programming
support
personnel
Providing
telephone
support
each
workday
during
work
hours
Providing
the
site
with
an
acceptance
test
to
qualify
the
site
system
in
the
transmittal
of
data
from
the
site
to
the
WlPP
WWlS
EXCEPTIONS
AND
UNRESOLVED
SAFETY
QUESTION
DETERMINATIONS
16
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
Requests
for
exceptions
(variances)
to
the
WlPP
operations
and
safety
requirements
must
be
formally
submitted
to
the
CAO
for
approval.
The
CAO
cannot
approve
exceptions
(variances)
to
requirements
that
are
controlled
by
others,
such
as
the
NRC
for
transportation,
or
the
EPA
and
the
NMED
for
the
RCRA
component
of
TRU­
mixed
waste,
without
first
obtaining
changes
to
the
controlling
permits.
An
exception
may
be
allowable
since
the
stated
limit
is
an
average
based
on
the
average
concentration
in
a
room
divided
by
the
number
of
containers
emplaced
in
the
room.
The
typical
drum
Volatile
Organic
Compound
(VOC)
concentration
will
be
well
below
the
established
maximum
average
concentration.
An
evaluation
can
be
performed
at
the
time
of
the
generatots
request
for
the
exception
to
ensure
that
the
addition
of
a
drum
with
a
VOC
concentration
greater
than
the
maximum
average
will
not
cause
the
concentration
in
the
room
to
exceed
the
maximum
average
limit.

Unreviewed
Safety
Question
Determinations
are
performed
by
WID
per
WP
12­
ARlOOI.
Unreviewed
Safety
Question
Determinations
are
conducted
to
determine
the
impact
of
proposed
waste
data
that
is
outside
the
current
limits
of
the
WAC
and
compares
the
impact
to
the
margin
of
safety
in
the
WlPP
Safety
Analysis
Report.

The
data
administrator,
upon
written
notification
of
a
CAO­
approved
Exception
Request
and
receipt
of
an
acceptance
of
the
proposed
change
by
Environment,
Safety,
and
Health,
will
update
the
WWlS
WAC
Exception
Table
with
the
WAC
exception
number,
package
identification,
and
the
new
limits
for
the
field
allowed
in
the
exception.

9.0
DATA
CHANGE
CONTROL
The
data
administrator
is
responsible
for
WWlS
data
management
and
change
control.
The
W
I
S
has
several
methods
of
identifying,
documenting,
and
controlling
the
changing
of
generator/
shipper
site
waste
data.
These
methods
include:

Rejecting
container
data
not
accepted
by
WWlS
in
the
Characterization
Module
or
Certification
Module
(a
Bad
Data
Report
will
be
created,
explaining
the
reason
for
reject
ion)

Resubmitting
rejected
data
will
require
correction
and
resubmittal
to
the
WlPP
prior
to
further
consideration
a
?hanging
the
approval
status
after
completion
of
each
review
and
approval
stage,
defining
which
module
can
be
used
to
gain
access
to
the
data
Deleting
a
record,
if
a
record
change
is
required
by
the
generatorkhipper
after
the
approval
process
has
begun
(the
WIPP
data
administrator
deletes
the
record
after
recording
the
reason
for
the
deletion
in
the
Change
Log
and
places
a
copy
of
the
deleted
record
in
the
database
Change
Log
for
future
reference)

17
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
.
Recording
(automatically)
any
changes
made
to
WWlS
data
records
and
providing
a
Change
Log
Report
to
identify
changes
that
have
been
made
(Change
Log
records
will
be
maintained
by
the
database
and
archived
when
the
database
archive
copies
are
made)

10.0
WWlS
PROGRAM
REPORTS
The
W
l
S
is
designed
to
produce
standardized
reports
for
various
uses.
The
WWIS
reports
are
listed
in
WP
05­
WA.
01.
These
reports
will
satisfy
routine
needs,
but
specialized
reports
may
occasionally
be
required
of
the
W
l
S
data.
Provisions
are
available
for
performing
queries
to
provide
information
for
nonstandard
data
requests.
These
requests
will
be
processed
by
the
data
administrator
on
the
basis
of
the
nature
of
the
request,
the
availability
of
resources
to
perform
the
request,
and
the
approval
of
Waste
Operations
management.

10.1
Printina
Standardized
Reports
Access
to
WWlS
database
standardized
reports
is
controlled
by
the
access
authorizations
assigned
to
users.
The
WWlS
data
administrator
will
print
and
provide
copies
of
reports
for
WIPP
personnel
who
do
not
have
access
authorization
to
the
WWlS
information.

The
WWlS
data
administrator
will
print
and
issue
reports
to
organizations
outside
of
WIPP
only
with
the
express
written
direction
of
the
CAO
or
the
reports
may
be
sent
to
the
CAO
representative
for
distribution.
Such
written
requests
for
distribution
will
be
filed
by
the
data
administrator
for
future
reference,

10.2
Shipment
Summarv
ReDort
The
Shipment
Summary
Report
will
be
generated
at
the
request
of
the
Waste
Handling
engineer
after
all
of
the
shipment
information
has
been
received
by
the
WWlS
and
will
include
the
information
necessary
for
acceptance
at
the
WIPP.
This
information
will
include
shipment
number,
TRUPACT­
I1
number,
assembly
number,
inner
containment
vessel
closure
date,
shipment
certification
date,
shipment
date,
weight,
surface
dose
rate,
identification
numbers
of
each
container
in
the
shipment,
total
activity
level,
nuclides
(by
TRUPACT­
It),
and
the
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Number
(if
assigned)
to
the
shipments.

18
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
10.3
Nuelide
Report
The
Nuclide
Report
lists
the
radionuclides
contained
in
the
waste
disposed
at
WlPP
at
the
time
that
the
report
is
generated
and
includes
the
total
activity
of
individual
radionuclides
as
well
as
the
total
repository
activity.
The
report
is
organized
by
waste
type
(contact­
handledhemote­
handled),
using
selection
criteria
established
by
the
user,
such
as
nuclides
by
generator
during
a
specified
period,
or
all
actinides.
This
report
can
be
used
to
aid
in
EPA
reporting
and
assist
WIPP
personnel
in
organizing
data
requests
for
input
to
the
Decay
Module.
This
report
is
to
be
generated
by
WIPP
personnel
as
required.

10.4
Waste
Emdacement
ReDort
The
Waste
Emplacement
Report
is
generated
on
an
emplacement
period
basis
when
containers
have
been
emplaced
or
otherwise
dispositioned
and
the
data
has
been
input
to
the
WWIS
from
the
barcode
reader
interface.
The
data
is
to
be
collected
by
container
(for
S
WBs
or
Ten­
Drum
Overpacks)
or
assembly
number
(for
seven­
packs).
This
report
will
be
generated
weekly
and
will
be
added
to
the
Operational
Log
and
retained
at
WlPP
for
the
operational
life
of
the
facility.

10.5
Headspace
Gas
Concentration
Report
The
Headspace
Gas
Concentration
Report
contains
the
average
concentration
of
all
headspace
analytes
in
a
particular
storage
room.
The
selection
criteria
is
for
all
containers
in
a
room
as
defined
by
actual
emplacement
information.
This
report
is
generated
on
demand.

10.6
Reaulatorv
Reportina:
Biennial
ReDortina
lnwt
Report
The
Biennial
Reporting
Input
Report
will
be
generated
annually
and
is
arranged
by
waste
type
for
each
generator
contributing
waste
to
WlPP
in
the
previous
year.
This
report
summarizes
the
amount
(weight
and
volume)
of
the
waste
received
from
each
generator
and
collects
all
of
the
EPA
hazardous
codes
to
provide
cross­
correlation
in
the
various
reporting
schemes.
The
EPA
identification
of
each
waste
generator
is
included
along
with
the
Item
Description
Code
(or
other
local
code),
the
waste
matrix
code,
TRUPACT­
if
Content
Code,
and
the
WlPP
waste
stream
identification.
This
report
is
intended
to
provide
input
to
WID
personnel
responsible
for
generating
the
Biennial
Report.

11
.O
WWlS
PROGRAM
RECORDS
Project
Record
Services
is
responsible
for
the
retention
of
records
generated
by
the
WlPP
WWIS
database
program.
Some
of
the
records
generated
by
this
program
will
be
retained
at
the
facility
as
a
part
of
the
operational
record
until
closure
of
the
facility.

19
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
Other
records
will
be
sent
to
records
storage.
Criteria
to
define
record
retention
times
are
listed
in
the
approved
Records
Inventory
and
Disposition
Schedule
and
the
implementing
procedures
for
each
document.

11.1
Backup
and
Archivina
Reauirements
The
WWIS
data
administrator
will
ensure
that
required
nightly
backups
of
system
information
are
performed.
The
W
l
S
data
administrator
will
use
this
backup
information
to
reconfigure
the
system
in
the
abnormal
event
of
a
system
failure
and
loss
of
system
data.
Nightly
backups
will
be
sent
out
of
the
building
to
a
backup
server
to
provide
for
the
event
of
catastrophic
hardware
failure.

In
the
event
of
a
system
failure,
the
W
l
S
data
administrator
is
responsible
for
evaluating
the
failure
event
and
determining
the
write­
access
users
that
should
be
notified
of
the
failure
since
data
entered
on
the
day
of
the
failure
may
have
been
lost.

The
WWlS
data
administrator
will
create
quarterly
and
annual
archive
copies
of
the
database
information
and
will
provide
the
archive
copies
of
the
WWlS
database
to
Waste
Operations
for
inclusion
in
the
operating
record,
which
will
be
retained
for
the
life
of
the
facility.

12.0
SITE­
DERIVED
WASTE
Waste
data
for
site­
derived
waste
will
be
input
into
the
WWlS
by
the
Waste
Handling
engineer.
This
activity
will
be
performed
per
the
requirements
of
the
procedure
entitled
Site­
Derived
Mixed
Waste
Handling,
WP
05­
WH1036.

13.0
TRAINING
FOR
THE
WWlS
PROGRAM
This
section
outlines
the
type
of
training
that
each
type
of
WWIS
user
must
have,
incfuding
a
qualification
card
for
the
data
administrator@).
The
WWIS
data
administrator
qualification
card
specifies
the
required
reading,
prerequisite
training,
knowledge
requirements,
and
practical
application
requirements
needed
to
ensure
proper
use
of
the
W
I
S
by
the
data
administrator.
The
WlPP
Technical
Training
Section
administers
the
qualification
card
program
and
controls
the
WWSS
Qualification
Cards.

The
basis
of
the
remaining
WWlS
training
will
be
on­
the­
job
training.
Waste
Operations
on­
the­
job
WWlS
training
will
include
for
the
Waste
Handling
technicians'
and
Waste
Handling
engineers'
hands­
on
use
of
the
system
to
gain
the
practical
application
knowledge
needed
to
operate
the
system.

20
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
The
Configuration
Manager
will
receive
instruction
on
the
proper
use
of
the
WWlS
from
the
data
administrator
(the
Subject
Matter
Expert).
Software
configuration
management
training
required
for
the
Configuration
Manager
is
described
in
the
WlPP
Training
Program
(WP
14­
TR.
O1)
and
Engineering
procedures.

The
data
administrator
will
be
qualified
per
the
criteria
listed
in
WlPP
RCRA
Part
B
Permit
Application,
DOEANIPP
91
­005,
Revision
6,
Appendix
H­
2;
and
training
will
be
documented
on
a
WWlS
Operator
Qualification
Card.
Waste
Handling
personnel
will
be
required
by
their
training
program
to
be
qualified
to
operate
the
WWIS.
This
training
will
be
documented
on
the
Waste
Handling
Qualification
Cards.
Other
personnel
will
be
instructed
through
on­
the­
job
training
in
the
use
of
the
WWlS
by
the
data
administrator
prior
to
granting
of
an
access
code
to
the
W
l
S
database.

14.0
REFERENCES
CAO­
94­
1010,
Transuranic
Waste
Characterization
Quality
Assurance
Program
Plan
CAO­
95­
1108,
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Software
Quality
Assurance
Plan
DOEICAO
1996­
21
84,
40
CFR
191,
Compliance
Certification
Application
for
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
DOENIPP­
069,
Waste
Acceptance
Criteria
for
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
DOElWlPP
91
­005,
WlPP
RCRA
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Chapter
C,
Waste
Analysis
Plan
SP­
WO­
WWIS­
002,
WWIS
User's
Manual
WP
05­
WA.
01
,
WlPP
TRU
Waste
Data
Management
Plan
WP
05­
WA.
03,
Waste
Stream
Profile
Form
Review
and
Approval
Program
Attachment
1
­
WIS
Access
Request
Form
Date:
Requestor:
Phone:

Company:
E­
Mail
Address:
Fax:

Organization
or
Site
Requesting
Access
To
W
I
S
:

Address:
City/
State:
Zip:

Period
of
Access
Authorization
Requested:
End
Date:
or
indefinite
TYPE
OF
USER:

­
GeneratodShipper
21
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
­
Characterization
Data
Official
­
Certification
Official
­
Shipping
Official
­
Regulatory
Compliance
Official
­
WlPP
Operations
­
Remote
Site
Query
Only
(your
site
data
only)
­
WlPP
Query
Only
­
RCRA
Permitting
Section
Staff
­
Quality
Engineers
­
Data
Administrator
­
Database
Administrator
­
Computer
Protection
Program
Manager
­
System
Administrator
REASON
FOR
ACCESS:

­
Generatorbhipper
data
input
for
review
and
approval
­
WlPP
employee
­assigned
WlPP
duties
­
Regulatory
Compliance
oversight
­
Quality
Assurance
oversight
­
External
analysis
­
Other:

Signature
of
Requestor:

Site
TRU
Steering
Committee
Member.

Data
Administrator
FOR
WlPP
APPROVAL
USE
ONLY
Date
Waste
Operations
Manager
Date
Assigned
User
ID:

Assigned
Site
IO:
Assigned
Password
ID:

Assigned
Database
ID:

Page
2
of
1
fn
Q)
>
Q)
J
­

L
Q)
fn
3
f
I
(Y
w
S
Q)

f
L
u
I
cr:
h
(u
m
u
c
b
E
>

e
9,
(u
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
Attachment
3
­
WWIS
Access
Notification
Form
Date:

Phone:
Site:
Requestor:

Requestor
Organization:

Address:

WWlS
ACCESS:
Approved
Rejected
WIPPWID
Waste
Operations
Data
Administrator:

Date:
Signature
Attachment:
WWlS
Access
Request
Form
Page
1
of
I
24
WIPP
Waste
Information
System
Program
WP
05­
WA.
02,
Rev.
0,
Chg.
2
Attachment
4
­
Shipping
Review
of
Cellulose,
Plastics
and
Rubber
Page
1
of
1
25
Selection
Criteria
Container
Number
57023
Site
Id
%

Wastestream
%

Data
Status
Code
%
Waste
Container
Data
Report
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Paae2af5
Waste
Container
Information
Cntr
Num
:
57023
Site
Id
:
Data
Status
Code
:
LA
­
LOS
A
M
O
S
NATIONAL
LABORATORY
Shipment
Data
Approved
by
WlPP
Waste
Stream
Profile
:
LA­
TA­
55­
43.01
Type
Code
:
2
­
SWB
WAC
Ex.
#
:

Cert
Date
:
03/
08/
1999
Cert
Site
:
WACRev#:
5
LA
­
LOS
ALAMOS
NATIONAL
LA
Generator
Site
:
IDC
Code
:
LA
­
LOS
ALAMOS
NATIONA
Matrix
Code
:
S5400
Trucon
Code
:
LA125A
Shipping
Category
:
111.1
C1
Pcb
Conc(
Ppm)
:
0
Decay
Heat
Uncert
(Watts)
:
Decay
Heat
(Watts)
:
.206
.0336
Closure
Date
:
05/
27/
1998
Vent
Date
:
0212411994
Filter
Install
Date
:
05/
27/
1998
Filter
Model
Number
:
NF013
Aspiration
Id
:
3
Gas
Gen
Rate
:
Gas
Hyd
Meth
Gen
Rate
:
Gas
Gen
Comp
Date
:

Packaging
Num
:
128
Shipment
Num
:
LAO0001
Assembly
Id
:
1288
Overpack
Cntr
Num
:
Overpack
Cntr
Type
:

Radionuclide
Description
Handling
Code
:
CH
Waste
Type
Code
:
TRU
Wst
Strrn
Bir
Id
:
T­
004
Wst
S
t
n
Mwir
Id
:
0.00
TN
Alpha
Act
(Cii
:
TN
Alpha
Act
Uncert
(Ci)
:
Tru
Alpha
Act
Conc
(CYg)
:
TN
Alpha
Act
Conc
Uncert
(Cilg)
:
Pu239
Eq
Act
(PE
Ci)
:
Pu239
Fiss
Grn
Eq
(Fge)
:
Pu239
Fiss
Gm
Eq
Uncert
(Fge)
:

Layers
Of
Packaging
:
1
Fill
Factor
(%)
:
44
Liner
Type
:
Liner
Punctured
:

Gross
Weight
(Kg)
:
424.9
Gross
Weight
Uncert
(Kg)
:

Alpha
Surf
Cont
(dpm/
lOOcm2)
:
BG
Surf
Cont
(dpm/
100cmZ)
:
Bg
Dose
Rate
(rnrerdhr)
:
Neut
Dose
Rate
(rnrem/
hr)
:
Total
Dose
Rate
(mrem/
hr)
:
1.4
7
f
2
0
0
0
Cntr
Disposal
Date
:
Cntr
Status
Code
:
PRE
6.160E+
OO
2.010E+
00
4.468E­
05
1
­458E­
05
5.61
*I
1
­04
Nuclide
Information
Activity(
Ci)
Activity
Uncert(
Ci)
Mass(
G)
Mass
Uncert(
G)

pu­
238
PU­
240
PU­
241
PU­
242
PU­
239
AM­
24
1
NP­
237
PLUTONIUM
238
PLUTONIUM
240
PLUTONIUM
241
PLUTONIUM
242
PLUTONIUM
239
AMERICIUM
241
NEPTUNIUM
237
6.15
.00183
.000003
.000007
.00434
.00421
.oooooo
1.005
.0076
.000001
.000002
.00113
.00284
.oooooo
.356
­00794
­001
12
­00
1
68
.069
­00121
.000602
.Ea
.0331
­000212
­000475
­01
795
.00082
AM0158
Waste
Container
Data
Report
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Waste
isolation
Pilot
Plant
Page
3
of
5
Waste
Container
Information
Cntr
Num
:
57023
Site
Id
:
Data
Status
Code
:

Type
Code
:
LA
­
LOS
ALAMOS
NATIONAL
LABORATORY
Shlpment
Data
Approved
by
WlPP
2
­
SWB
Waste
Stream
Profile
:
LA­
TA­
5543.01
Nuclide
information
Mass
Radionuclide
Description
Activity(
Ci)
Activity
Uncer&(
Ci)
Mass(
G)
Uncert(
G)

U­
234
URANIUM
234
~~

.00047
.000133
.0744
.02095
Waste
Mat1
Parm
Radio
Assay
Method
Material
Parameters
Information
Description
Weight(
Kg)

RUBBER
4.39
IRON
BASE
METAL
ALLOYS
114.15
OTHER
M
ETAUALLOYS
.06
CELLULOSICS
1.55
PLASTICS
18.1
FRAM
PAN
Method
Id
RTRM
VISUAL
Assay
Methods
Information
Description
Assay
Date
Description
PC/
GAMMA
ISOTOPIC
RATIO
SYSTEM
PASSIVE/
ACTIVE
NEUTRON
COUNTER
Characterization
Methods
Information
MOBILE
RTR
@
LANL
VISUAL
CHARACTERIZATION
METHOD
Sample
Id
:
H­
8FEB0413.
D
Layer
No
Sampled
:
0
Sample
information
041301.
l998
04/
30/
1998
Charz
Method
Date
o
i
11
311
998
0312711
990
Sample
Type
:
HGHM
Date
Sampled
:
02/
04/
1998
Sample
Amounts
Analyte
Method
Concentration
Date
Analyzed
Detection
Method
1333­
74­
0
­
HYDROGEN
74­
82­
8
­
METHANE
Sample
Id
:
V­
8FEB0413.
D
Layer
No
Sampled
:
0
520.1
.02
Volume
02/
04/
1998
U
520.1
.02
Volume
02/
04/
1998
U
%

Yo
Sample
Type
:
HGVO
Date
Sampled
:
Q2/
04/
1998
Waste
Container
Data
Report
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Page
4
of
5
~~
~~~
~

Waste
Container
Information
Cntr
Num
:
57023
Site
Id
:
Data
Status
Code
:

Type
Code
:
LA
­
LOS
ALAMOS
NATIONAL
LABORATORY
Shipment
Data
Approved
by
WlPP
2
­
SWB
Waste
Stream
Profile
:
LA­
TA­
5543.01
Sample
Id
:
V­
8FEB0413.
D
Layer
No
Sampled
:
0
Sample
Information
Sample
Type
:
HGVO
Date
Sampled
:
02/
04/
1998
Sample
Amounts
Analyte
Method
100­
41­
4
­
ETHYL
BENZENE
107­
06­
2
­
1,2­
DICHLOROETHANE
108­
10­
1
­
METHYL
ISOBUTYL
KETONE
108­
67­
8
­
1,3,5­
TRIMETHYLBENZENE
108­
88­
3
­
TOLUENE
108­
90­
7
­
CHLOROBENZENE
10838311
06423
­
M,
P­
XYLENE
110­
82­
7
­
CYCLOHEXANE
127­
1
8­
4
­
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
156­
59­
2
­
CIS­
1
,ZDICHLOROETHYLENE
56­
23­
5
­
CARBON
TETRACHLORIDE
60­
29­
7
­
ETHYL
ETHER
67­
56­
1
­
METHANOL
67­
64­
1
­
ACETONE
67­
66­
3
­
CHLOROFORM
71­
36­
3
­
BUTANOL
71­
43­
2
­
BENZENE
71­
55­
6
­
1,
l
,I­
TRICHLOROETHANE
75­
09­
2
­
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75­
25­
2
­
BROMOFORM
75­
34­
3
­
1,
l­
DICHLOROETHANE
75­
35­
4
­
1,
l
­DICHLOROETHY
LENE
76­
13­
1
­
1,1,2­
TRICHLORO­
I
,2,2­
TRIFLUOROETHANE
78­
93­
3
­
METHYL
ETHYL
KETONE
79­
01­
6
­
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
79­
34­
5
­
I
,I
,2,
ZTETRACHLOROETHANE
9547­
6
­
O­
XYLENE
95­
63­
6
­
1,2,4­
TRIMETHYLBENZENE
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
430.1
Concentration
Date
Analyzed
Detection
Method
2.43
Ppm
2.42
Ppm
25.5
Ppm
3.71
Ppm
2.07
Ppm
2.3
Ppm
4.9
Ppm
2.39
Ppm
1.83
Ppm
2.31
Ppm
1.88
Ppm
2.66
Ppm
15.1
Ppm
20.5
Ppm
1.76
Ppm
21.8
Ppm
1.52
Ppm
2.01
Ppm
1.71
Ppm
2.65
Ppm
2.23
Ppm
.92
Ppm
1.91
Ppm
18.9
Ppm
1.72
Ppm
2.49
Ppm
2.54
Ppm
3.47
Ppm
Comment
Information
Comment
Type
Comments
.
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
04/
1998
02/
0411
998
ozo4/
199a
02/
0411
998
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Waste
Container
Data
Report
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Page
5
of
5
Waste
Container
Information
Cntr
Num
:
57023
Site
Id
:
Data
Status
Code
:

Type
Code
:
LA
­
LOS
ALAMOS
NATIONAL
LABORATORY
Shipment
Data
Approved
by
WlPP
2
­
SWB
Waste
Stream
Profile
:
LA­
TA­
5543.01
Comment
Information
Comment
Type
Comments
~
~
~
­
­
­~­

WASTE
CONTAINER
ORIGINAL
DRUM
REPACKAGED
INTO
MULTIPLE
DRUMS,
THEN
INDIVIDUAL
DAUGHTER
DRUMS
REPACKAGED
INTO
SWB
WITH
DRUM
LID
REMOVED
&
3
EMPTY
DRUMS
FILTER
DATE
AND
CLOSURE
DATE
ARE
FOR
SWB
CONTAINER,
VENT
DATE
IS
FOR
WASTE
VENTING
WHICH
IS
THE
DATE
ORIGINAL
DRUM
WAS
VENTED,
RTRM
ON
ORIGINAL
DRUM
BEFORE
REPACKAGING
DAUGHTER
DRUM
WAS
USED
FOR
RADIOASSAY
ORIGINAL
VENTED
&
FILTERED
DRUM
WAS
REPACKAGED
AFTER
HGAS
RADIONUCLIDES
49CFR173.433F
ISOTOPE
LIST
FOR
SHIPPING
PAPERS
&
LABELING:
PU­
238
GENERAL
COMMENTS
ASSAY
METHODS
CHAR2
METHODS
Selection
Criteria
Site
id
:

Nuclide
:

Panel
Number
:

Room
Number
:

Handling
Code
:
Show
Uncertainty
:

TRU
Nuclides
Only
:

EPA
Tracked
Nuclides
Only:
%

%

%

%

%
YES
96
Y
WlPP
Waste
Information
System
Nuclide
Report
Waste
Isolation
Mot
Plant
Page
2
of
2
Panel
Number:
1
Room
Number:
1
Activity
Activity
Mass
Radionuclide
(Ci)
Uncert
(Ci)
Mass(
G)
Uncert(
G)

PU­
239
­
PLUTONIUM
239
61
3
63.05
68
63.5
Totals:
613
63.05
68
63.5
Panel
Number:
1
Room
Number:
2
Activity
Activity
Mass
Radionuclide
.
(Ci)
Uncert
(Ci)
Mass(
G)
Uncert(
G)

AM­
241
­
AMERICIUM
241
.017937191
7
.0012559
.005171
PU­
238
­
PLUTONIUM
238
.047886207
7
.003351
­002767
PU­
239
­
PLUTONIUM
239
4.02001
3791
10
3.07141
19.22
PU­
240
­
PLUTONIUM
240
.233645937
7
.01636
1.0151
PU­
242
­
PLUTONIUM
242
Panel
Number:
1
.00002954
7
.000002068
­007454
Totals:
4.319512666
38
3.092378968
20.250492
Room
Number:
8
Activity
Activity
Mass
Radionuclide
(Ci)
Uncert
(Ci)
Mass(
G)
Uncet­
t(
G)

PU­
239
­
PLUTONIUM
239
14
6.1
134
6.1
Totals:
14
6.1
134
6.1
Panel
Number:
1
Room
Number:
7
Activity
Activity
Mass
Radionuclide
(Ci)
Uncert
(Ci)
Mass(
G)
Uncert(
G)

U­
238
­
URANIUM
238
.00000068
2
0
2
Panel
Number:
1
Totals:
.00000068
2
0
2
Room
Number:
7
Activity
Activity
Mass
Mass(
G)
Uncert(
G)
Radionuclide
(Ci)
Uncert
(Ci)

AM­
241
­
AMERICIUM
241
1.487297834
35.33348
.402953
.124164
46.487302
­032572
PU­
238
*
PLUTONIUM
238
80.452481581
35.181366
PU­
239
­
PLUTONIUM
239
PU­
240
­
PLUTONIUM
240
128.099689442
38.7763
1805.07754
191
.I21
5.380749684
35.86457
15.3752
1
1.2917
PU­
242
­
PLUTONIUM
242
.0004a9627
35.000065651
.064286713
.075494
~~

Totals:
215.420708168
180.155781651
1867.40728171
202.64493
Grand
Totals:
846.740221
514
289.305781651
2072.49966068
294.495422
Working
Copy
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Plan
WP
02­
PC.
02.
Rev.
0
CCA.
40
CFR
Part
191,
Compliance
Certification
Application
for
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant.
DOEKAO­
1996­
2184.
October
1996,
United
States
Department
of
Energy,
Waste
isolation
Pilot
Plant,
Carlsbad
Area
Office,
Carlsbad,
New
Mexico.

6
Working
Copy
.
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Plan
WP
02­
PC.
02,
Rev.
0
FIGURE
1
SURVEILLANCE
AREAS
WITHIN
THE
DELAWARE
BASIN
I
I
I
P
W
ME
XICO
D
R
W
H
OLEDATABASE
Wednesday,
March
24,
I999
AMERICAN
PETROLEUM
INSTITUTE
~

TOWNSHIP
21s
1
~­
RANGE
27E
....
SECTION
35
­
­
­

LOCATION
198OFS­
198OFW
,

___
I_
.
­
.

COUNTY
EDDY
NUMBER
30015220860000
__.
­.

MAPSYMBOL
OG
___
I
552650
LOCATION
POINTS
ARE
FOR
REFERENCE
ONLY
­
NO
­
­
­__­
STATE
X­
PUNE
ACTUAL
SURVEY
MADE.
­
­_
STATE
Y
­PLANE
521
671,
I
______

NINE
TOWNSHIP
0
UNIT
LOCATION
WELLNAME
WELW
OPERATOR
WELL
STATUS
B
TWN
LEASE
FIELD
NAME
DRILLER
NELL
TYPE
'LUGGED
DATE
>OMPDATE
TD
FORMATION
M
P
INFORMATIOY
__
I­_

­­___
.­
i
__­.­
...
....

OIL
&
GAS
WELL
....
....
~______
....

II
CARLSBAD
E
~

­
­
­
­

ELEVATION
31
27KB
ZND
CASING
STRING
&DEVELOPMENT
­­­.
I
­_­­__
133/
8@
428
038@
2W
__
..........

.
....
...
..

.
.­

3RD
CASING
STRING
4TH
CASING
STRING
I.­
­
SPUD
DATE
03/
31
I1
977
­­­
__
_>

__
ow02l1977'
_____
___
__
I
359MSSP
.
._
.....
....

5
112
Q
m
9
5
__.__

STH
CASING
STRING
­_

m
U
N
E
O
U
S
W
F
U
F
ORMATIOM
NCIDENCE
REPORTI
TWN
0
KNOWN
POTASH
AIR
DRILLED
0
WAS
BRINE
ENCOUNTERED
[7
FIELD
V
l
s
c
c
LEASE
AREA
1st
WORKOVER
Ind
WORKOVER
'rd
WORKOVER
.th
WORKOVER
th
WORKOVER
IOTES
.­­
I_..­
.....
......
..
........
____
.....
............................
..........................
.
.
­
.~

.
­
...
....
................
..........
.­
....
...........
­
.....
.....
......
.....
.....
_.
I___..~__
I._
_I.__~.
.............

__
....
­
...

.........
­.
..
WASTE
ISOLATION
PILOT
PLANT
DELAWARE
BASIN
DRILLING
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
ANNUAL
REPORT
997
throuph
SEPTEMBER
I
998
DBANNUALREPORT
Table
of
Contents
1.0
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program
2.0
Background­
Appendix
DEL
Data
DEL.
5.1.3
Drilling
Fluids
DEL.
7
DEL.
7.1
Regulatory
Context
DEL.
7.2
Shallow
Drilling
Events
DEL.
7.2.1
Water
Wells
DEL.
7.2.2
Potash
Coreholes
DEL.
7.2.3
Sulhr
Coreholes
Inadvertent
and
Intermittent
Intrusion
by
Drilling
DEL.
7.3
Deep
Drilling
Events
DEL.
7.4
DEL.
7.5
DEL.
7.6
Borehole
Permeability
Assessment
Rate
of
Drilling
in
the
Basin
Pressurized
Brine
Encounters
Within
the
Delaware
Basin
3.0
Schedule­
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program
4.0
1998
Updates­
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
Drilling
Fluids
Shallow
Drilling
Events
Deep
Drilling
Events
Rate
of
Drilling
in
the
Basin
New
Mexico
Well
Count
and
Intrusion
Rate
Pressurized
Brine
Encounters
Within
the
Delaware
Basin
Borehole
Permeability
Assessment
Borehole
Depths
and
Diameters
New
Drilling
Technology
5.0
Summary­
1998
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program
1
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
9
13
14
14
14
14
14
15
16
.
17
17
17
17
17
6.0
Quality
Assurance
18
7.0
References
19
Figure
1
Figure
2
Figure
3
Figure
4
Figure
5
Figure
6
Table
DEL­
3
Table
DEL­
4
Table
DEL­
5
Table
DEL­
6
Table
DEL­
7
List
of
Figures
WIPP
Site,
Delaware
Basin,
and
Surrounding
Area
20
Minimum
Oiiand
Gas
Well
Plugging
Requirements
in
the
Delaware
Basin
21
Standard
Oil
and
Gas
Well
Plugging
Practices
in
the
Potash
Resource
Area
of
the
Delaware
Basin
Typical
Well
Structure
and
General
Stratigraphy
Near
the
WIPP
Site
Stratigraphy
for
W
P
Site
and
Surrounding
Area
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program
Schedule
­
FY
98
and
FY
99
List
of
Tables
Boreholes
Within
the
Delaware
Basin
Number
of
Shallow
and
Deep
Boreholes
Within
the
Delaware
Basin,
by
Resource
or
Type
Number
of
Shallow
Boreholes
Per
Square
Kilometer
in
the
Delaware
Basin,
by
Resource
or
Type
Number
of
Deep
Boreholes
Per
Square
Kilometer
in
the
Delaware
Basin,
by
Resource
or
Type
Number
of
Boreholes
Per
Square
Kilometer
to
be
Used
in
Performance
22
23
24
25
6
7
8
8
Assessment
Calculations
9
1.0
DELA
WARE
BASIN
DRILLING
SURVEELANCE
PROGRAM
The
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program
(DBDSP)
is
designed
to
monitor
resource
extraction
activities
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(WIPP).
This
program
is
based
on
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
requirements.
The
EPA
environmental
standards
for
the
management
and
disposal
of
Transuranic
(TRU)
radioactive
waste
are
codified
in
40
CFR
Part
191
(EPA
1993).
Subparts
B
and
C
of
the
standard
address
the
disposal
of
radioactive
waste:
The
standard
requires
the
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
to
demonstrate
the
expected
performance
of
the
disposal
system
using
a
probabilistic
risk
assessment
or
performance
assessment
(PA).
This
PA
must
show
that
the
expected
repository
performance
will
not
release
radioactive
material
above
limits
set
by
the
EPAs
standard.
This
assessment
must
include
the
consideration
of
inadvertent
drilling
into
the
repository
at
some
hture
time.

The
EPA
provided
criteria
in
40
CFR
0
194.33
that
addressed
the
consideration
of
future
deep
and
shallow
drilling
in
PA.
These
criteria
lead
to
the
formulation
of
conceptual
models
that
incorporate
the
effects
of
these
activities.
These
conceptual
models
use
parameter
values
drawn
fiom
the
databases
in
Appendix
DEL
of
the
Compliance
Certification
Application
(CCA).
Appendix
DEL
databases
contain
resource
extraction
information
gathered
as
a
precursor
to
the
DBDSP.
Examples
of
information
of
interest
include
the
drilling
rate
of
deep
and
shallow
boreholes
and
data
relating
to
these
holes
such
as
diameter.

In
accordance
with
these
criteria
the
DOE
used
the
historical
rate
of
drilling
for
resources
in
the
Delaware
Basin
to
caiculate
a
fbture
drilling
rate.
In
particular,
in
calculating
the
frequency
of
future
deep
drilling,
40
CFR
9
194.33(
b)(
3)(
1)
(EPA
1996)
provided
the
following
guidance
to
the
DOE:

idenafy
deep
drilling
that
has
occurred
for
each
resource
in
the
Delaware
Basin
over
the
past
100
years
prior
to
the
time
at
which
a
compliance
application
is
prepared.

The
DOE
used
the
historical
record
of
deep
drilling
for
resources
below
2,150
feet
(656
meters)
that
has
occurred
over
the
past
100
years
in
the
Delaware
Basin.
2,150
feet
was
chosen
because
this
is
the
depth
to
the
repository
and
the
repository
is
not
directly
breached
by
boreholes
less
than
this
depth.
In
the
past
100
years,
deep
drilling
occurred
for
oil,
gas,
potash,
and
s
u
l
k
exploration.
These
drilling
events
were
used
in
calculating
the
rate
of
deep
drilling
within
the
controlled
area
(the
sixteen
section
Land
Withdrawal
Boundary
of
W
P
)
and
throughout
the
basin
in
the
future,
as
discussed
in
Appendix
DEL
of
the
CCA.
Historical
drilling
for
purposes
other
than
resource
exploration
and
recovery
(such
as
W
P
site
investigation)
were
excluded
from
the
calculation
in
accordance
with
guidance
provided
in
40
CFR
194.33.

In
calculating
the
fiequency
of
hture
shallow
drilling,
40
CFR
4
194.33(
b)(
4)(
1)
states
that
the
DOE
should:

idenufy
shallow
dnlling
that
has
occurred
for
each
resource
in
the
Delaware
Basin
over
the
past
IO0
years
prior
to
the
time
at
which
a
compliance
application
is
prepared.

1
Additional
criterion
for
calculation
of
fbture
shallow
drilling
rates
is
provided
in
40
CFR
6
194.3
3
(b)(
4)(
iii):

in
considering
the
hstorical
rate
of
all
shallow
drilling,
the
Department
may.
if
justified.
consider
only
the
hstorical
rate
of
shallow
dnliing
for
resources
of
similar
type
and
quality
to
those
in
the
controlled
area.

The
only
resources
present
at
shallow
depths
(less
than
2,150
feet
[655
meters]
below
the
surface)
within
the
controlled
area
are
water
and
potash.
Thus,
consistent
with
40
CFR
0
194.33(
b)(
4),
the
DOE
used
the
historical
record
of
shallow
drilling
associated
with
water
and
potash
extraction
in
the
Delaware
Basin
to
calculate
the
rate
of
shallow
drilling
within
the
controlled
area.

The
EPA
provides
fkrther
criteria
concerning
the
analysis
of
the
consequences
of
fUture
drilling
events
in
performance
assessments
in
40
CFR
tj
194.33(
c)(
EPA
1996).
Consistent
with
these
criteria,
the
following
parameters
regarding
drilling
were
considered
in
the
performance
assessment
as
documented
in
Appendix
DEL
of
the
CCA:

types
of
drilling
fluids
*
amounts
of
drilling
fluids
borehole
depths
borehole
diameters
borehole
plugs
fraction
of
such
boreholes
that
are
sealed
by
humans
0
natural
processes
that
will
degrade
plugs
*
instances
of
encountering
pressurized
brine
in
the
Castile
The
DOE
will
continue
to
provide
surveillance
of
the
drilling
activity
in
the
Delaware
Basin
in
accordance
with
the
criteria
established
in
40
CFR
194
during
the
operational
phase
and
win
continue
until
the
DOE
and
the
EPA
agree
that
no
hrther
benefit
can
be
gained
from
continued
surveillance.
The
results
of
this
surveillance
activity
will
be
used
in
performance
assessment
calculations
performed
in
support
of
recertification.

The
purpose
of
the
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Plan
is
to
provide
for
active
surveillance
of
drilling
activities
within
the
Delaware
Basin
(Figure
l),
with
specific
emphasis
on
the
nine­
township
area
that
includes
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(WIPP)
Site
(Figure
1).
The
surveillance
of
drilling
activities
will
build
on
the
data
presented
in
Appendix
DEL
and
comply
with
the
activities
presented
in
Appendix
DMP
of
the
CCA,
which
were
used
to
develop
modeling
assumptions
for
PA.
The
collection
of
additional
information
on
drilling
patterns
and
practices
in
2
the
Delaware
Basin
will
be
used
to
define
whether
the
drilling
scenarios
in
the
application
continue
to
be
valid
at
each
recertification
or
documentation
of
continued
compliance
for
the
WIPP.

Surveillance
of
drilling
activities
within
the
Delaware
Basin
will
be
implemented
no
later
than
at
the
beginning
of
the
operational
phase.
This
activity
will
continue
after
closure
for
100
years
or
until
the
DOE
can
demonstrate
to
the
EPA
that
there
are
no
significant
concerns
to
be
addressed
by
further
surveillance
(Section
7.1.4,
DOE
1996b).
Beginning
no
later
than
the
initiation
of
the
operational
phase
and
continuing
through
post
closure,
drilling
activities
within
the
Delaware
Basin
will
be
tracked
using
commercially
available
databases.
Drilling
activities
as
related
to
hydrocarbon
resources,
potash
boreholes,
and
water
wells
that
occur
within
the
nine­
township
area,
in
which
the
W
P
Site
is
centered,
will
be
more
rigorously
monitored
using
the
commercial
databases,
visual
surveillances,
and
the
drilling
records
maintained
by
both
state
and
federal
organizations.

2.0
BACKGROUND­
APPENDIX
DEL
1996
DATA
The
information
and
tables
presented
in
this
section
are
from
Appendix
DEL
of
the
Compliance
Certification
Application
(DOE
1996a)
submitted
to
the
EPA
in
October
1996.
This
information
was
used
in
the
PA
that
supported
the
first
WIPP
certification
to
the
EPA
disposal
standard.
The
basis
of
the
DBDSP
is
to
provide
annual
accounting
on
the
specific
items
mentioned
in
this
section.
The
well
counts
listed
in
Tables
DEL­
4,
DEL­
5,
and
DEL­
6
were
used
to
calculate
the
intrusion
rate
for
PA.
Table
DEL­
7
shows
the
results
of
those
calculations.
Section
4.0
of
this
report
will
address
the
specific.
items
from
this
section
with
updated
counts
fiom
1996
and
new
calculations
as
necessary.

DEL.
S.
1.3
Drilling
fluids
are
an
integral
part
of
every
drilling
program.
Rotary
drilling
rigs
and
drill
bits
would
not
be
able
to
hnction
without
drilling
fluids,
or
mud
as
it
is
most
commonly
referred
to
in
the
oil
and
gas
industry.
The
drilling
fluids
are
circulated
continuously
through
the
drill
pipe,
down
hoie
to
the
bit
nozzles,
and
back
up
the
annulus
to
the
mud
tanks
or
pits
on
the
surface.
The
drilling
fluids
pumped
through
the
bit
nozzles
cause
the
bit
cutters
to
turn
which,
a'
­
4g
with
the
turning
of
the
drill
stem,
cuts
the
hole.
As
the
fluid
moves
out
through
the
drill
bit,
a
i
carries
the
cuttings
made
by
the
bit
to
the
surface.

Drilling
fluids
serve
several
other
functions
as
well.
They
lubricate
and
cool
the
bit,
assist
in
bringing
heavier
cuttings
to
the
surface,
aid
in
controlling
pressures
that
may
exist
in
formations
that
are
penetrated
by
the
bit,
and
serve
as
a
source
of
downhole
information.

There
are
a
variety
of
drilling
fluids
used
in
Delaware
Basin
drilling.
Most
rotary
drilling
operations
use
saturated
brine
(10
to
10.5
pounds
per
gallon)
as
a
drilling
fluid
until
reaching
the
Bell
Canyon
Formation,
where
intermediate
casing
is
set.
The
brine
has
most
often
been
3
manufactured
by
injecting
fresh
water
into
the
Salado
Formation
and
then
pumping
the
water
back
to
the
surface.
This
process
enables
drillers
to
have
a
constant
source
of
quality
brine
water.
Saturated
brine
is
used
heavily
in
drilling
because
the
intermediate
string
passes
through
the
Salado
Formation,
which
is
salt.
Fresh
water
will
cause
washout
of
the
salt.
Once
drilling
is
continued
in
harder
rock
formations,
such
as
the
Bell
Canyon
Formation,
materials
such
as
bentonite,
barite,
or
attapulgite
are
often
added
to
the
drilling
fluid.
All
of
these
materials
will
increase
viscosity
and
add
weight
to
the
drilling
fluid
column.

In
recent
years,
the
increased
capacities
of
circulating
systems
and
improvements
in
pumping
technology
have
resulted
in
greater
precision
in
controlling
mud
flow.
Present
day
drilling
fluids
have
been
formulated
using
complex
chemistry
to
combat
specific
downhole
problems.
These
additions
to
fluid
technology
allow
the
driller
to
vary
chemical
and
physical
properties
of
the
drilling
fluid
many
times
if
necessary
while
drilling
an
oil
or
gas
well.

DEL.
7
Inadvertent
and
Intermittent
Intrusion
by
Drilling
Information
pertinent
to
the
assessment
of
the
likelihood
of
inadvertent
intrusion
into
the
repository
is
presented
in
this
section.

DEL.
7.1
Regulatory
Context
The
EPA
criteria
for
certification
of
WIPP's
compliance
with
the
40
CFR
Part
191
disposal
regulations
state
that
performance
assessments
examine
deep
and
shallow
drilling
that
may
potentially
affect
the
disposal
system
during
the
10,000­
year
regulatory
time
frame
(40
CFR
tj
194.33[
a]
and
tj
194.54[
b][
l]).
Deep
drilling
is
defined
by
the
criteria
as
drilling
events
that
reach
or
exceed
2,150
feet
(655
meters)
below
the
surface
while
shallow
drilling
means
drilling
events
that
do
not
reach
a
depth
of
2,150
feet
(655
meters)
(6
194.2).
The
total
rate
of
deep
drilling
must
be
calculated
as
the
sum
of
the
rates
of
deep
drilling
for
each
resource
in
the
Delaware
Basin
over
the
past
100
years.
The
total
rate
of
shallow
drilling
must
be
calculated
as
the
sum
of
the
rates
of
shallow
drilling
over
the
same
time
period
for
each
resource
in
the
Delaware
Basin
that
is
of
similar
type
and
quality
as
the
resources
in
the
W
P
controlled
area.

DEL.
7.2
Shallow
Drilling
Events
The
majority
of
shallow
holes
are
composed
of
water
wells,
potash
cbreholes,
and
sulkr
coreholes.
The
identification,
location,
and
depth
of
the
shallow
boreholes
in
the
Delaware
Basin
have
been
taken
from
existing
commercial
databases
and
maps.
The
data
gathered
on
shallow
boreholes
was
taken
directly
from
commercial
databases
and
BLM
records
as
described
below.

DEL.
7.2.1
w
r
W
e
h
Information
on
water
wells
in
the
Delaware
Basin
was
obtained
from
a
commercial
database
developed
by
Whitestar
Corporation
of
Englewood,
Colorado.

4
DEL.
7.2.2
Potashew
Information
on
potash
coreholes
in
the
Delaware
Basin
was
compiled
from
BLM
records.

DEL.
7.2.3
Mfu
r
Coreho
la
Sulfbr
corehole
information
was
obtained
from
a
commercial
database
developed
by
Whitestar
Corporation
of
Englewood,
Colorado,
and
the
Petroleum
Information
Corporation
of
Denver,
Colorado.

DEL.
7.3
Deep
Drilling
Events
Only
the
drilling
of
a
deep
well
could
result
in
inadvertent
human
intrusion
into
the
WIPP
repository.
The
only
known
wells
that
can
be
classified
as
deep
are
oil
and
gas
wells.
Information
on
the
identification,
location,
and
depth
of
the
deep
boreholes
in
the
Delaware
Basin
has
been
derived
from
existing
commercial
databases
and
maps.
The
data
gathered
on
the
deep
oil
and
gas
boreholes
are
available
from
several
commercial
sources.
To
assure
the
accuracy
of
these
commercial
databases
and
maps,
and
obtain
the
best
possible
count
of
deep
wells
in
the
basin,
these
commercial
sources
were
verified
against
one
another.

The
data
sources
selected
for
determining
the
number
of
oil
and
gas
wells
in
the
DeIaware
Basin
were
maps
obtained
fiom
the
Midland
Map
Company
(MMC)
and
a
database
obtained
fiom
the
Petroleum
Information
Corporation
(PI).
Both
the
MMC
and
PI
obtained
well
records
from
the
NMOCD
and
the
Railroad
Commission
of
Texas
OGD.
These
companies
have
a
reputation
for
data
reliability;
the
information
they
provide
is
regarded
as
a
standard
within
the
industry.
However,
these
companies
do
not
provide
any
warranty
on
the
accuracy
or
the
completeness
of
the
data.

It
is
not
considered
economically
feasible
to
validate
these
data.
The
process
of
validating
the
data
would
require
field
verification
of
wells
in
an
area
covering
approximately
8,910
square
miles
(23,077
square
kilometers)
as
well
as
a
comparison
of
NMOCD
and
BLM
records
with
the
private
records
of
the
various
oil
and
gas
companies.

While
it
was
not
considered
feasible
to
vaiidate
the
original
data,
it
was
considered
reasonable
to
determine
a
verifiable
deep
well
count.
By
comparing
the
two
selected
commercial
sources
of
data,
a
count
of
deep
wells
in
the
Delaware
Basin
has
been
prepared.
In
comparing
the
PI
database
to
the
MMC
maps,
some
wells
were
found
to
be
identified
either
in
the
database
or
on
the
maps,
but
not
in
both
sources.
The
well
count
presented
here
was
derived
using
aIl
wells
in
the
PI
database
plus
the
wells
identified
on
the
MMC
maps
that
were
not
in
the
PI
database.

DEL.
7.4
Rate
of
Drilling
in
the
Basin
The
number
of
boreholes
listed
in
the
PI
database
and
the
number
of
boreholes
shown
on
the
5
MMC
map
but
not
listed
in
the
PI
database
are
provided
in
Table
DEL­
3.
In
addition,
the
number
of
shallow
and
deep
boreholes
created
in
the
Delaware
Basin
over
the
past
100
years
is
shown
by
type
of
borehole
in
Table
DEL­
4.

En
the
case
of
water
wells,
the
available
data
do
not
include
the
depths
of
all
of
the
water
wells
shown
in
the
database.
To
amve
at
an
estimate
of
the
total
number
of
deep
and
shallow
water
weils,
the
ratio
of
known
deep
wells
(that
is,
those
2,150
feet
[656
meters]
or
greater)
versus
known
shallow
water
wells
was
calculated
and
applied
to
the
total
number
ofwater
wells
shown
in
the
database.

Table
DEL­
3.
Boreholes
Within
the
Delaware
Basin,
1996
Boreholes
Shown
on
the
Midland
Map
But
Boreholes
Listed
Not
Listed
in
the
PI
Total
Number
of
Borehole
Type
in
the
PI
Database
Database
Boreholes
by
Type
Oil
Well
Gas
Well
OiUGas
Well
Abandoned
Wells
Dry
Hole
Jnjection
Well
Service
Well
Total
Hydrocarbon
Boreholes
Sulphur
Corehole
Potash
Corehole
Stratigraphic
and
Core
Test
Hole
'

Water
Well
Brine
Well
(Solution
Mining)

Total
Other
Boreholes
Hydrocarbon
Boreholes
5,728
37
1,569
2
11
0
167
1
3,453
56
72
2
147
0
.I50
98
Other
Resource,
Exploratory,
or
Test
Boreholes
5
84
0
925
0
1,271
'
0
2,311
1
0
0
5,092
0
5,765
1,571
14
168
3,509
74
147
11,248
584
925
1,271
'

2,3
11
1
5,092
Excluding
boreholes
dnlled
as
part
of
WIPP
site
characterization
programs
6
The
intrusion
rate
for
boreholes
drilled
per
square
kilometer
(0.39
square
mile)
over
10,000
years
has
been
calculated
using
the
borehole
counts
listed
in
Tables
DEL­
4,
DEL­
5,
and
DELQ.
The
calculated
rates
suggested
for
use
in
the
performance
assessment
are
shown
in
Table
DEL­
7.
As
provided
by
40
CFR
3
194.33(
b)(
4)(
iii),
the
calculated
rate
for
shallow
boreholes
excludes
sulphur
holes
because
no
economically
extractable
sulphur
is
located
within
the
WIPP
land
withdrawal
area
(NMBMMR
1995).
In
addition,
consistent
with
EPA
guidance
in
the
ReJponse
to
Comments
Document
For
40
CFR
Pur?
194
(EPA
1996c)
(see
page
12­
8,
last
paragraph),
both
shallow
and.
deep
holes
created
as
part
of
WIPP
site
characterization
efforts
have
been
excluded
from
the
count.
Based
on
the
data
provided
in
these
tables,
the
calculated
rates
are
21.821
shallow
holes
per
square
kilometer
(0.39
square
mile)
and
46.765
deep
holes
per
square
kilometer
(0.39
square
mile)
over
10,000
years.

Table
DEL4.
Number
of
Shallow
and
Deep
Boreholes
Within
the
Delaware
Basin,
by
Resource
or
Type,
1996
1
Borehole
Type
Shallow
Borehole
Deep
Borehole
'

Hydrocarbon
Borehole
608
Sulphur
Corehole
195
Potash
Corehole
906
Stratigraphic
and
Core
Test
Hole
1,215
Water
Well
2,3
11
Brine
Well
(Solution
Mining)
1
Total
Boreholes,
by
Depth
5,536
10,640
89
19
56
0
0
10,804
'
Equal
to
or
less
than
2,150
feet
(655
m).
Greater
than
2,150
feet
(655
m).
Excluding
boreholes
drilled
as
part
of
WIPP
site
characterization
programs.

7
Table
D
E
E
5
Number
of
Shallow
Boreholes
Per
Square
Kilometer
in
the
Delaware
Basin,
by
Resource
or
Type
',
1996
Borehole
Type
Deep
Boreholes
*
Boreholes
Per
Square
F(
m
Hydrocarbon
Borehole
10,640
46.056
Sulphur
Corehole
89
0.385
Potash
Corehole
19
0.082
Stratigraphic
and
Core
Test
Holes3
56
0.212
Brine
Well
(Solution
Mining)
0
0
Water
Well
0
0
Total
Deep
Boreholes
10,804
16.765
i
~
~

Borehole
Type
Shallow
Boreholes
*
Boreholes
Per
Square
Km
Hydrocarbon
Borehole
608
2.632
Sulphur
Corehole
495
2.113
Potash
Corehole
906
3.922
Stratigraphic
&
Core
Test
Holes
1,215
'

I
Water
Wells
2,311
5.259
10.003
Brine
Well
(Solution
Mining)
1
0.004
Total
Shallow
Boreholes
5,536
23.963
*

*
The
area
of
the
Delaware
Basin
is
23,102.1
square
kilometers
(14.356
square
miles).
The
number
of
holes
per
square
kilometer
is
calculated
as
follows:
(number
of
holes)
x
10.000
years
/
area
/
100
years.
Equal
to
or
less
than
2.150
feet
(655
m).
Excluding
boreholes
dnlled
as
part
of
WIPP
site
characterization
programs.

Table
DEL6.
Number
of
Deep
Boreholes
Per
Square
Kilometer
in
the
Delaware
Basin,
by
Resource
or
Type
*,
1996
8
Table
DEL­
7.
Number
of
Boreholes
Per
Square
Kilometer
to
be
Used
in
Performance
Assessment
Calculations,
1996
Type
of
Borehole
Number
of
Boreholes
Boreholes
Per
Square
Km
Shallow
Borehole
5.041
'
21.821
Deep
Borehole
10,801
46.765
'
Excluding
sulphur
coreholes
and
boreholes
drilled
as
part
of
W
P
site
characterization
programs.
'
Excluding
boreholes
dnlled
as
part
of
WIPP
site
characterization
programs.

DEL.
7.5
Pressurized
Brine
Encounters
Within
the
Delaware
Basin
Some
of
the
human
intrusion
scenarios
evaluated
in
the
WIPP
performance
assessment
include
the
assumption
that
a
borehole
results
in
the
establishment
of
a
flow
path
between
the
repository
and
a
pressurized
brine
pocket
that
could
be
located
beneath
the
repository
in
the
Castile.
To
iden*
reasonable
assumptions
for
use
in
the
CCA
performance
assessment,
commercial
drillers
and
operators
with
experience
in
the
Delaware
Basin
were
surveyed
to
determine
the
frequency
of
occurrence
and
typical
depths
of
abnormally
pressurized
brine
zones
within
the
Delaware
Basin
(Personal
Communication
1996d;
Personal
Communication
1996e;
Personal
Communicatbn
1996c
Personal
Communication
19968).

For
the
purpose
of
this
investigation,
abnormalIy
pressurized
brine
zones
are
defined
as
those
that
exhibit
pressures
exceeding
the
hydrostatic
pressure
of
the
column
of
drilling
fluid
in
the
hole.
Consistent
with
this
definition,
any
brine
encounter
having
pressure
exceeding
hydrostatic
pressure
is
considered
abnormally
pressurized.
Flow
to
the
surface
driven
by
differential
pressures
just
above
hydrostatic
pressure,
however,
would
typically
not
be
noticed
by
a
driller,
and
is
expected
to
be
of
little
impact
to
performance
assessment.

When
asked
how
often
abnormally
pressurized
brine
zones
are
encountered,
each
of
the
drillers
surveyed
stated
that
it
was
an
uncommon
occurrence
in
the
Delaware
Basin,
and
that
they
believe
the
actual
frequency
to
be
less
than
five
percent.
This
estimate
captures
those
occurrences
where
the
differential
pressure
could
be
great
enough
to
drive
a
noticeable
quantity
of
drilling
fluid
to
the
surface.
The
drillers
reported
that
these
zones
are
most
frequently
encountered
in
the
Castile
Formation
in
the
Delaware
Basin.

The
Castile
Formation
within
the
Land
Withdrawal
Area
(LWA)
is
approximately
1,250
feet
(381
meters)
thick.
It
is
primarily
an
anhydrite
formation
and
has
been
found
to
have
isolated
areas
that
hold
quantities
of
brine.
Based
on
observed
Castile
porosity
(amount
of
space
in
the
formation
to
store
brine)
and
permeability
(ability
of
the
formation
to
conduct
fluids),
brine
present
in
the
unit
may
be
released
into
an
intersecting
uncased
wellbore.
This
brine
may
be
normally
or
abnormally
pressured.

9
Hydrostatic
pressure
at
any
depth
in
the
wellbore
is
calculated
using
the
formula:

Prn
=
MW
x
D
x
0.052
where
Pm=
pressure
(pounds
per
square
inch),
MW=
mud
weight
(pounds
per
gallon),
D=
depth
(feet),
and
and
0.052
is
a
conversion
factor
representing
mud
density.

For
example,
at
3,000
feet
(915
meters),
the
hydrostatic
pressure
is
calculated
at
1,560
pounds
per
square
inch
(1.08
x
lo7
Pa)
based
upon
the
use
of
a
10­
pounds­
per­
gallon
saturated
brine
as
the
drilling
fluid.
In
this
example,
brine
flow
to
the
surface
would
be
possible
only
if
the
brine
source
is
pressurized
greater
than
1,560
pounds
per
square
inch.

Typically,
the
driller
would
become
aware
of
abnormally
pressurized
brine
zones
only
if
the
pressure
of
the
brine
encounter
is
sufficient
to
cause
a
noticeable
gain
of
fluid
in
the
mud
pit.
When
this
occurs
and
the
flow
is
not
great
enough
to
cause
immediate
concern,
drilling
will
typically
continue,
but
the
driller
will
calculate
the
rate
of
brine
flow.
This
is
accomplished
by
shutting
off
the
pumps
and
using
a
bucket
of
known
capacity
to
catch
the
fiee­
flowing
brine
and
noting
the
time
that
it
takes
to
fill
the
bucket.
From
this
measurement,
the
driller
can
determine
the
rate
of
flow
in
barrels­
per­
minute.
If
the
flow
rate
is
not
so
great
as
to
cause
concern
ofover­
filling
the
reserve
pit,
drilling
would
continue
until
the
hole
reaches
the
Bell
Canyon
Formation.
The
intermediate
casing
would
then
be
tun
and
cemented.
Once
in
place,
the
casing
string
would
isolate
the
over
pressurized
zone
and
prevent
fbrther
flow
to
the
surface.

A
very
heavy
brine
flow,
however,
such
as
one
that
could
potentially
fill
the
pit
within
one­
to­
two
hours,
would
not
be
allowed
to
continue.
Corrective
action
would
be
taken
in
the
form
of
killing
the
flow
of
brine.
This
is
accomplished
in
the
field
by
shutting
in
the
blowout
preventor
(BOP)
and
calculating
the
downhole
pressure.
Using
this
pressure,
the
driller
then
determines
the
quantity
of
barite
(the
mud
additive
most
often
used)
that
must
be
added
to
the
drilling
fluid
to
sufficiently
increase
the
hydrostatic
pressure
exerted
by
the
column,
so
that
the
differentiai
pressure
results
in
downward
flow
itom
the
drilling
fluid
column
into
the
formation.
When
brine
flow
to
the
surface
has
stopped,
drilling
continues
to
the
depth
originally
determined
in
the
well
plan.
Once
this
depth
is
reached,
intermediate
casing
is
run
and
cemented
in
place.

The
drillers
reported
that
measures
to
kill
pressure­
driven
flow
to
the
surface
are
rarely
required.
They
are
generally
able
to
drill
through
the
Castile
Formation
while
brine
is
flowing
and
successfblly
set
the
intermediate
string
in
the
Bell
Canyon
Formatien
(the
typical
drilling
horizon).

Using
a
typical
drilling
scenario
based
on
a
pressurized
zone
at
a
depth
of
3,000
feet
(915
meters)
with
a
hydrostatic
pressure
of
1,560
pounds
per
square
inch
(1.08
x
lo7
Pa),
flow
rates
necessary
to
fill
the
pit
at
one­
and­
two­
feet­
per­
hour
increments
have
beeh
calculated.
This
calculation
is
provided
below.

10
Assume:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.

J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
Well
Depth,
A2
:
Mud
Pit
Volume:
Casing
Weight:
Casing
Inner
Diameter
Open
Hole
Inner
Diameter
Unit
Volume:
Unit
Volumetric
Flow
Rate:
Drilling
Fluid:
Density
(p):

Friction
Factor
(f):
Internal
Casing
Pipe
Area
(A):
Gravity
(8):
Velocity
(1
ft/
hr
Brine
Pit
Disp.):
Velocity
(2
ft/
hr
Brine
Pit
Disp.):
3,000
feet
125
feet
*
125
feet
*
6
feet
=
93.750
cubic
feet
=
701.298.701
gallons
32
pounds
per
foot
8.625
inches
11.5
inches
=
0.958
feet
15,625
cubic
feet
per
foot
of
vertical
height
4.34
cubic
feet
per
second
Case
1:
10.25
pounds
per
gallon
brine
Case
2:
barite
Case
1:
76.68
pounds
per
cubic
foot
Case
2:
263.3
pounds
per
cubic
foot
0.06
for
coated
casinglopen
hole
x
d2/
4
=
~(
0.958)~/
1=
0.721
square
feet
32.17
feet
per
square
second
V
=
QIA=
4.31*
1/
0.721
=
6.017
feet
per
second
V
=
QIA=
4.34*
2/
0.721
=
12.034
feet
per
second
Equation:

Derived
from
Gieck
(1987)
For
the
case
of
1
f
a
r
brine
pit
displacement:
AP
=
1,654.099
pounds
per
square
inch
(1.14046
x
lo7
Pa)
gauge
For
the
case
of
2
fthr
brine
pit
displacement:
AP
=
1,823.784
pounds
per
square
inch
(1.25745
x
IO'
Pa)
gauge
The
calculation
shows
that
a
one­
foot­
per­
hour
pit
level
increase
would
be
possible
only
if
encountering
bottom­
hole
pressures
of
at
least
1,654
pounds
per
square
inch
gauge.
A
two­
foot­
per­
hour
increase
in
the
pit
level
would
require
a
pressure
of
1,824
pounds
per
square
inch
(1
25745
x
lo7
Pa)
gauge.
Those
surveyed
indicated
that
pressures
of
this
magnitude
are
seldom
experienced
in
the
Delaware
Basin,
and
that
both
one­
and
two­
foot­
per­
hour
pit
IeveI
rises
would
be
noticed
by
the
driller.

The
low
rate
of
occurrence
of
abnormally
pressured
brine
zones
in
the
Delaware
Basin
(or
WIPP
vicinity)
has
been
fbrther
supported
by
information
documented
in
the
drilling
records.
Using
databases
assembled
by
PI
and
MMC,
which
provide
well
name,
operator,
location,
total
depths,
casing
sizes,
and
dates
of
drilling
and
completion,
the
DOE
has
developed
a
list
of
all
oil
and
gas
wells
that
have
been
drilled
within
the
New
Mexico
portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin.
Wells
on
this
list
are
located
in
the
southern
portions
of
Eddy
and
Lea
Counties,
which
are
the
only
New
11
Mexico
counties
within
the
Delaware
Basin.

The
well
files
at
the
OCD
offices
in
Artesia
and
Hobbs,
New
Mexico,
(the
NMOCD
maintains
the
records
of
wells
drilled
on
both
state
and
federal
leases
in
Eddy
and
Lea
Counties)
were
idso
reviewed.
The
files
record
activities
entered
by
the
drillers
Erom
initiation
of
drilling
to
completion
of
a
particular
well.
Drillers
note
in
these
reports
any
unusual
occurrences
such
as
abnormally
pressured
brine.
Incidents
of
this
type
are
reported
in
the
form
of
daily
reports.
Although
there
is
no
requirement
that
they
do
so,
drillers
may
include
pressurized
brine
encounters
in
their
daily
reports,
even
if
there
has
been
no
effect
on
drilling
activities.
The
Texas
portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin
was
not
evaluated.
The
rationale
for
not
including
the
Texas
portion
is
that
wells
nearer
the
WIPP
land
withdrawal
area
are
of
greatest
interest
in
determining
the
presence
of
brine
within
the
Castile.

Of
a
total
of
3,406
well
files
reviewed,
28
were
found
to
have
notations
by
the
driller
indicating
the
encounter
of
pressurized
brine.

Another
factor
influencing
performance
assessment
analysis
is
the
time
that
flow
fiom
a
pressurized
zone
to
the
surface
would
continue
prior
to
the
installation
of
the
intermediate
casing
string.
As
stated
previously,
the
intermediate
casing
is
typically
run
when
the
Bell
Canyon
Formation
is
reached,
which
is
approximately
4,000
feet
(1,220
meters)
in
depth
near
the
WIPP
site.
At
this
time,
the
drill
string
is
removed
from
the
hole
and
intermediate
casing
is
run
and
cemented
fiom
4,000
feet
(1,220
meters)
to
the
surface.
Mer
cementing
is
completed,
the
driller
is
required
by
regulation
to
wait
24
hours
for
the
cement
to
set
before
drilling
resumes.

Drilling
time
from
the
repository
depth
at
2,150
feet
(656
meters)
through
the
remaining
portion
of
the
Salado
and
all
of
the
Castile
(an
additional
1,250
feet;
381
meters)
is
calculated
to
be
54
hours.
This
number
is
based
on
drilling
rates
of
50­
to­
60
feet
(1
5­
to­
1
8
meters)
per
hour
from
the
base
of
the
surface
casing
at
800
feet
(244
meters),
to
the
top
of
the
Castile
at
2,750
feet
(838
meters)
(New
Mexico
Junior
College
1995).
The
drilling
rate
is
expected
to
slow
to
30­
to40
feet
(9­
to­
12
meters)
per
hour
through
the
Castile
(New
Mexico
Junior
College
1995).
Once
the
Bell
Canyon
has
been
entered,
an
additional
14
hours
are
typically
required
to
remove
the
drill
string
from
the
hole
and
run
and
cement
the
3,200
feet
(976
meters)
of
casing.

In
the
majority
of
drilling
operations,
the
driller
will
be
able
to
safely
drill
ahead,
reach
the
Bell
Canyon,
and
complete
the
intermediate
casing,
without
having
to
resort
to
killing
the
pressure.
However,
if
pressures
encountered
are
great
enough
that
the
driller
is
forced
to
engage
the
BOP
and
add
weight
to
the
drilling
fluid,
the
maximum
time
that
flow
to
the
surface
would
occur
is
one
to
two
hours.
Therefore,
two
hours
represents
a
reasonable
lower
bound
duration
and
is
derived
from
high
pressure
situations
where
the
BOP
would
be
used
to
stop
the
flow
to
the
surface
and
control
the
pressure
by
adding
weight
to
the
drilling
fluids.

12
DEL.
7.6
Borehole
Permeability
Assessment
Human
intrusion
scenarios
evaluated
in
the
WIPP
performance
assessment
assume
that
one
or
more
boreholes
intercept
the
repository
and
that
the
boreholes
are
subsequently
plugged.
To
support
the
evaluation
of
the
potential
consequences
of
scenarios
of
this
type,
the
DOE
has
assessed
the
permeabilities
that
may
be
expected
in
plugged
boreholes
in
the
Delaware
Basin.
The
permeability
of
the
borehole
plugs
is
important
because
this
is
a
measure
of
the
quantity
of
contaminated
fluids
that
could
hypothetically
flow
through
the
borehole
plug.

Results
of
this
work
are
reported
in
Inadvertent
Intrusion
Borehole
Permeability,
included
as
Attachment
7.
The
DOE
report
summarizes
plugging
practices
in
the
Delaware
Basin
and
identifies
three
plugging
configurations
typically
used
in
the
basin:

a
single
continuous
plug
through
the
evaporite
sequence,

*
a
two­
plug
configuration
that
contains
one
plug
in
the
Bell
Canyon
Formation
(below
the
depth
of
potential
brine
reservoirs)
plus
one
plug
in
the
Rustier
Formation
(between
the
Culebra
aquifer
and
the
repository),
and
a
three­
plug
configuration
that
contains
the
two
plugs
described
for
the
two­
plug
configuration,
plus
an
additional
plug
in
the
Salado
Formation.

Conclusions
presented
in
the
DOE
report
for
each
of
these
configurations
include
the
following.

m
In
the
case
of
the
single
continuous
plug,
the
permeability
of
the
plug
is
expected
to
remain
at
5
x
square
meters
for
the
entire
10,000­
year
period
of
interest.

*
For
the
two­
plug
configuration,
the
permeability
between
the
repository
and
the
surface
is
expected
to
be
5
x
lo­
''
square
meters
for
a
period
of
200
years
and
lo­"
square
meters
to
1
O­
I4
square
meters
after
that.
The
plug
between
the
Castile
and
the
repository
is
expected
to
have
a
very
high
permeability
for
200
years
and
values
of
lo­"
to
square
meters
up
to
1,200
years,
and
to
1
O­
I5
square
meters
after
that.

With
the
three­
plug
configuration,
the
permeability
between
the
intermediate
plug
and
the
surface
is
expected
to
be
5
x
meters
after
that.
The
intermediate
plug
is
expected
to
have
a
permeability
of
5
x
IO­"
square
meters
for
a
median
time
of
5,000
years,
and
the
borehole
between
the
Castile
and
the
repository
is
expected
to
have
values
ranging
from
lo­"
to
years
more,
and
square
meters
for
200
years
and
lo­
''
to
square
square
meters
fur
1,000
to
IO­
''
square
meters
after
that.

Under
all
scenarios
considered
in
the
report,
the
permeability
of
the
borehole
plug
systems
never
exceed
that
of
silty
sand
(lo­"
to
lo­
''
square
meters).

13
3.0
SCHEDULE­
DELAWARE
BASIN
DRILLING
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
The
implementation
of
the
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program
was
October
1
,
1997
at
the
start
of
the
fiscal
year
(FY98).
Appendix
DEL
was
formalized
and
finalized
in
March,
1996
for
submittal
in
the
Compliance
Certification
Application
(CCA).
From
March,
1996
untiI
October,
1997
no
surveillance
was
performed
in
the
Delaware
Basin
on
drilling
activities.
The
original
data
presented
a
history
of
when
the
wells
were
drilled
and
what
their
status
was
when
they
were
drilled..
The
focus
now
is
not
only
when
a
well
was
drilled
but
what
its
current
status
is.
To
fill
in
the
blank
spaces
an
aggressive
schedule
(see
Figure
6
)
was
developed
to
bring
the
program
up
to
date.

4.0
1998
UPDATES­
DELAWARE
BASIN
DRILLING
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
The
information
provided
in
this
section
are
the
results
of
the
ongoing
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program.
One
of
the
purposes
of
the
program
is
to
report
any
deviations
from
the
material
that
was
provided
in
Appendix
DEL
of
the
CCA.

4.1
Drilling
Fluids
Since
Appendix
DEL
of
the
CCA
was
finalized
no
changes
have
occurred
in
the
drilling
practices
in
the
Delaware
Basin.
This
was
accomplished
by
a
review
of
the
records
of
all
new
wells
drilled
in
the
New
Mexico
portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin
since
1995.
A
change
in
drilling
practices
would
necessitate
a
change
in
the
application
of
drilling
fluids.
The
mud
programs
(or
drilling
fluid
programs)
have
remained
basically
the
same
as
what
was
reported
in
Appendix
DEL.

4.2
Shallow
Driliing
Events
Commercial
sources
and
visits
to
the
OCD,
BLM,
and
State
Engineer's
offices
are
used
to
identify
new
wells.
A
look
at
the
well
fife
will
identifi
whether
it
is
a
shallow
event
or
not.
Any
new
well
drilled
to
a
depth
of
less
than
2,150
feet
will
classify
the
well
as
shallow.
This
applies
only
to
wells
that
are
located
within
the
Delaware
Basin.
Most
shallow
events
are
fiom
water
and
mineral
exploration
in
the
immediate
area
although
no
new
mineral
exploration
has
been
identified
in
the
last
two
years.

4.3
Deep
Drilling
Events
In
the
Delaware
Basin
deep
drilling
events
are
usually
associated
with
oil
and
gas
drilling.
Commercial
sources
and
visits
to
the
OCD
offices
are
used
to
identify
these
events.
If
the
total
depth
reached
is
greater
than
2,150
feet
it
is
classified
as
a
deep
drilling
event.

14
4.4
Rate
of
Drilling
in
the
Basin
­
1998
The
following
information
is
derived
from
the
databases
maintained
by
the
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program.
It
depicts
both
shallow
and
deep
drilling
events.
This
information
also
adds
to
the
numbers
presented
in
the
tables
presented
in
Appendix
DEL.
The
supplied
data
is
current
through
8/
1/
98.
In
Appendix
DEL
certain
well
types
were
shown
but
not
used
in
the
calculations
for
intrusion
rates
(WTPP
boreholes).
This
does
not
occur
in
the
updated
material.
One
reason
for
this
is
that
deleting
certain
holes
fiom
the
calculations
does
not
make
much
difference
due
to
the
number
of
holes,
thus,
all
holes
will
be
used
in
the
count.

HYDROCARBON
HOLES
Dry
Hole
Oil
Well
Gas
Well
OiYGas
Well
Drilling
or
Waiting
on
Paperwork
Injection
Well
Salt
Water
Disposal
Well
Service
Well
Junked
&
Abandoned
Hole
Plugged
Oil
Well
Plugged
Gas
Well
Plugged
Oil
&
Gas
Well
Plugged
Injection
Well
Plugged
Salt
Water
Disposal
Well
Sulfur
Boreholes
Potash
Boreholes
W
P
Boreholes
Stratigraphic
Test
Holes
Water
Wells
Salt
Wells
Core
Holes
2,425
3,707
782
126
15
3
02
1
105
1
1
1
518
164
56
0
o_
8,312
OTHER
RESOURCE
HOLES
584
0
0
1,222
1,706
8
45
3,565
1,006
1,775
584
4
46
9
37
17
41
157
76
0
8
4
3,764
0
1,005
198
2
590
4
2
1,801
TOTAL
3,43
I
5,582
1,336
130
61
311
38
I22
152
675
240
56
8
4
12,076
TOTAL
584
198
1,224
2,296
12
47
5,366
1,005
15
Total
Resource
Holes
in
the
Delaware
Basin
11,877
5,565
17,442
ADDITIONAL
INFORMA
TION
l!
Yuumx
TOITAL
Hydrocarbon
holes
>
2,150'
deep
Hydrocarbon
holes
<
2,150'
deep
S
u
b
boreholes
>
2,150'
deep
Potash
boreholes
>
2,150'
deep
WIPP
boreholes
>
2,150'
deep
Stratigraphic
test
holes
>
2,150'
deep
Water
wells
>2,150'
deep
Salt
wells
>
2,150'
deep
Core
holes
>
2,150'
deep
1
1,442
634
89
19
10
56
0
0
0
Total
of
all
resource
holes
>
2,150'
deep
Total
of
all
resource
holes
in
the
Delaware
Basin
11,675
5.767
17,442
Total
of
all
resource
holes
<
2,150'
deep
LWTRUSION
RATE
The
intrusion
rate
is
calculated
as
follows:
(number
of
holes)
X
10,000
years
/
area
(23,102
square
kilometers)
/
102
years.
The
original
calculation
was
for
100
years
but
that
was
through
1996.
Each
year
that
passes
will
show
another
year
at
the
end
of
the
formula.
Doing
the
calculation
this
way
yields
the
average
and
also
keeps
a
running
account
of
the
total
number
of
wells
in
the
Delaware
Basin.
This
is
a
more
conservative
method
than
the
one
shown
beIow.

Another
way
to
calculate
the
intrusion
rate
is
to
maintain
the
100
year
standard.
This
would
mean
dropping
all
the
wells
drilled
in
the
first
year.
At
the
current
rate
of
drilling
the
number
of
welIs
would
actually
decrease
over
time
as
the
boom
years
of
oil
drilling
are
long
gone.
This
would
eventually
lower
the
intrusion
rate.
At
any
one
time
only
the
number
of
wells
driIled
during
the
100
year
span
would
be
accounted
for.
This
method
would
not
give
a
true
accounting
of
what
is
happening
in
the
Delaware
Basin
over
the
entire
period
of
interest.

1998
Intrusion
Rate
Shallow
holes
=
24.47
boreholes.
per
square
kilometer
Deep
holes
=
49.55
boreholes
per
square
kilometer
4.5
New
Mexico
Well
Count
and
Intrusion
Rate
For
added
interest
the
counts
and
intrusion
rates
were
re­
calculated
using
only
the
wells
in
the
16
New
Mexico
portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin.
The
intrusion
rate
worked
out
to
be
70
holes
per
square
kilometer
utilizing
all
of
the
known
deep
holes.

4.6
Pressurized
Brine
Encounters
Within
the
Delaware
Basin
28
wells
were
originally
identified
as
encountering
pressurized
brine
in
the
Castile.
AI1
new
weirs
identified
since
the
formulation
of
Appendix
DEL
have
been
researched
for
encounters
of
brine.
None
were
found
to
have
encountered
pressurized
brine.

4.7
Borehole
Permeability
Assessment
The
plugging
practices
and
requirements
as
identified
in
Appendix
DEL
are
stil1
the
same
as
currently
being
conducted
in
the
Delaware
Basin
(see
Figures
2
and
3).
Therefore,
the
calculations
presented
in
the
Appendix
DEL
assessment
have
not
changed.

4.8
Borehole
Depths
and
Diameters
The
typical
borehole
depths
(related
to
the
oil
bearing
strata)
and
the
diameter
of
the
portion
of
the
drilled
hole
have
not
changed
from
those
which
were
reported
in
Appendix
DEL.
Borehole
depths
are
variable
across
the
Delaware
Basin
due
to
the
different
depths
at
which
oil
and
gas
are
located.
Hole
sizes
vary
from
well
to
well
but
several
stand
out
as
being
the
most
commonly
used
by
the
local
operators
(see
Figures
4
and
5
).

4.9
New
Drilling
Technology
Breakthrough
developments
in
autodriller
and
mud
system
technologies
have
been
incorporated
into
a
series
of
drilling
rigs
that
not
only
provide
drillers
and
operators
with
the
tools
and
means
to
drill
wells
faster
and
safer,
but
may
ultimately
alter
drilling
work
processes
and
procedures.
Utilizing
this
concept
reduced
drilling
times
by
37%,
required
no
mud
pits
resulting
in
faster
cleanup
times,
allowed
for
a
smaller
footprint
which
saved
operator
location
construction
costs,
and
enabled
rigging
up
on
small
environmentally
sensitive
locations.
Already
one
well
has
been
drilled
in
this
area
utilizing
this
technology.

5.0
SUMMARY­
1998
DELAWARE
BASIN
DRILLING
SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM
The
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Program
continues
to
monitor
the
drilling
of
oil
and
gas
wells
within
the
Delaware
Basin.
This
information
is
added
to
the
existing
databases
as
necessary.
Another
ongoing
process
is
the
determination
of
the
current
status
of
each
well
within
the
nine
townships.
Any
changes
require
updating
the
existing
databases.
Numerous
changes
do
occur,
such
as
operator
changes,
oil
to
injection,
gas
to
plugged,
etc.
Since
the
finalization
of
Appendix
DEL
in
the
spring
of
1996
there
have
been
two
very
productive
years
in
oil
and
gas
drilling
within
17
the
Delaware
Basin,
specifically
the
area
immediately
south
of
the
site.
Since
January,
1998
the
price
of
crude
oil
has
dropped
$3.00
per
barrel
of
oil
causing
the
drilling
rate
for
oil
in
this
area
to
become
almost
non­
existent.
Well
status
verification
for
the
New
Mexico
portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin
is
95%
complete.
3,773
known
hydrocarbon
wells
exist
in
this
area.
This
total
includes
all
of
the
wells
drilled
in
this
area
since
the
finalization
of
Appendix
DEL.

This
year
the
Texas
portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin
is
scheduled
to
undergo
the
same
process
as
was
accomplished
in
the
New
Mexico
portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin
the
last
year.
Due
to
current
oil
prices,
this
program
does
not
expect
many
new
wells
to
be
drilled
in
this
area
over
the
next
year.
Since
many
wells
will
change
from
oil
and
gas
to
salt
water
disposal,
injection,
or
plugged
and
abandoned
status
over
time,
verification
of
well
status
is
needed
to
accurately
monitor
these
resource
extraction
activities.

6.0
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
Activity
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
appropriate
portions
of
Section
2.1.
of
the
CAO
Quality
Assurance
Program
Document
(CAO
QAPD).
Specifically,
procedures
will
be
followed
(and
prepared
as
needed)
to
assure
the
accurate
recording
of
information
and
data
taken
from
outside
sources,
and
the
verification
of
any
calculations
performed
to
develop
modeling
parameters
from
field
data.
When
possible
and
practical,
field
verification
will
be
conducted.
Field
verification
shall
be
mandatory
w
i
t
h
one
mile
of
the
WIPP
site
boundary.
Field
data
wiII
be
recorded
in
permanent
notebooks
in
accordance
with
CAO
QAPD
*

18
7.0
REFERENCES
(Section
7.1.4,
DOE
1996b)
Chapter
7,
Section
7.1.4,
Effectiveness
of
the
Active
Institutional
Controls
Program,
of
the
Compliance
Certification
Application,
DOEKAO­
1996­
2
184,
October
1996.

Appendix
DEL
Appendix
DMP
Oil
&
Gas
Journal,
96:
50,
12/
14/
1998
Autodriller,
cylindrical
mud
tanks,
generate
breakthrough
developments
in
drilling
technologies
CAO
QAPD
19
Figure
1
Wipp
Site,
Delaware
Basin,
and
Surrounding
Area
20
AN3BRPTf
5,000
6,000
7.000
9,000
B.
250
.Ip
Fasing
Cemerring
:or
8.625"
3.3.

.I
I
..
4
:so'
Cerrenr
?lug
8.625"
0.9.
interrneaiote
Casing
i
NOT
TO
SCALE
:

Casing
Cementing
for
5.50"
O.
D.
Production
Casing
50'
Cemenr
?tug
%st
Iron
Elridge
Plug
I
SRAPiiiC
LEGEND
5.50"
O.
D.
2roduction
Cosing
.
..'
.
.
.'
.
,.,#
C3ncrete
..
..
.
,
.
,

3:
eel
Casing
Czs:
l
r
m
Figure
2
Minimum
Oil
and
Gas
Well
Plugging
Requirements
in
the
Delaware
Basin
21
2,000
3.000
4,000
5,000
6.000
7.000
8.000
8.250
GRAPHIC
LEGEND
5.50"
0.
D.
Production
Casing
Figure
3
in
the
Potash
Resource
Area
of
tie
&laware
Basin
Standard
Oil
and
Gas
Well
Plu
gin
Practices
5
I
+2325'

W
4
Ln
<
0
L
6075'
_.
.
~'
:;
..

?
'_.

.I
..

_.
.
....
...
..
...
..
..

,I
,.

..
..

572
....
......
..:
.
?
.........
...
..........
y
,
..
..
....

....
..
..
'
..
.
.
1
:

.
I
..
..
._
.....
...
:
..
­"
..
..
,
..
S
L;
R
FAC
E
CASING
SiZE
C
>t
t
'ABLE
AT
i3WER
LEFT)
I
­
r­

...
­..

..
...
.....
*OLE
SIZE
(SEE
TABLE
AT
LOWER
LEFT)
i
'

..
.....
;
..

\2
7/
0"
TUBINt
lfl
PERFORATIONS
>
CMT
RETAINEF?

\IOT
73
SCALE
Figure
4
Typical
Well
Structure
and
General
Stratigraphy
Near
the
WlPP
Site
23
I
­

I
f
i
I
­
3000
FT.­

i
1
2ASTILE
­
­
­
I
/
­
4000
FT.­
­

11000
Fr.

12000
Fr.

13000
FT.

14000
FT.
1
BELL
CANYON
I
I
I
1
BRUSHY
CANYON
I
I
I
30NE
SPRINGS
I
I
I
­
­
­
­
15000
FT.
­
­
­
­
­
16000
F
l
.
­
­
­
­
­
'7000
FT.
­
­
­
­
­
19000
FT.
­

OURCE:
GEOLOGICAL
C++
ARACTERIZA:
ION
QEFJORT
NOT
ro
SCALE
~

Fgure
5
Stratigraphy
for
WIPP
Site
and
Surrounding
Area
24
..

Attachment
D.
5
Effective
Date:

Cognizant
Section:
Mine
Engineerinq
Approved
By:

Cognizant
Department:
Engineering
Approved
By:
WIPP
Underground
B
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES,
O­
l,
Rev.
1
Table
of
Contents
ii
ACRONYMS
AND
ABBREVIATIONS
..............................................................................

....................................................................................................
I
1
.O
INTRODUCTION
1
2
1.1
Background
.......................................................................................................
1.2
WlPP
Surveying
Historv
and
Accuracy
Reauirements
.....................................

5
2.0
ADMiNlSPRATlON
.................................................................................................
5
2.1
Organization
.....................................................................................................
5
2.2
Responsibilities
................................................................................................
5
2.3
Training
and
Qualifications
...............................................................................

5
3.0
TECHNICAL
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
...............................................................
6
g
Prowam
.....................................................................
7
3.1
3.2
Surface
Surveyinq
Program
.............................................................................
8
3.3
Subsidence
Monitoring
Program
......................................................................

11
4.0
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
........................................................................................
12
4.1
Survey
Equipment
Control
..............................................................................
12
4.2
Procurement
...................................................................................................
12
4.3
Instructions,
Procedures,
and
Drawings
.........................................................
12
4.4
Document
Control
...........................................................................................
13
4.5
Control
of
Purchased
Material,
Equipment/
Services
......................................
13
4.6
identification
and
Control
of
Items
..................................................................
13
4.7
Software
Requirements
..................................................................................
14
4.9
Control
of
Nonconforming
Conditionslltems
...................................................
14
4.10
Corrective
Action
......................................................................................
14
4.1
1
Records
Management
15
4.1
2
Audits
and
Independent
Assessment
.......................................................
15
4.13
Data
Reduction
and
Verification
..............................................................

15
5.0
IMPLEMENTATION
MATRIX
................................................................................
15
5.1
WID
Mine
Engineerinq
...................................................................................

15
6.
Q
REFERENCES
......................................................................................................
..............................................................................

I
round
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
CCA
Compliance
Certification
Application
DOE
Department
of
Energy
FGCS
Federal
Geodetic
Control
Subcommittee
GPS
GIobal
Positioning
Survey
K
kilometer
.

mm
millimeter
NAD
27
NGS
National
Geodetic
Survey
QA
Quality
Assurance
QAPD
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description
PRS
Project
Records
Service
SDD
System
Design
Description
TRU
Trans
u
ran
ic
WID
Waste
Isolation
Division
LVl
PP
North
American
Datum
of
1927
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
WlPP
Underground
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
81,
Rev.
1
1.0
1NTRODUGTION
This
document
defines
the
Surveying
Program
and
responsibilities
currently
being
carried
out
by
the
Waste
Isolation
Division
(WID)
Mine
Engineering
Surveying
Section.
The
Surveying
Section's
program
plans
and
functions
are
designed
to
provide
location
and
alignment
information
necessary
to
establish
precise
horizontal
and
vertical
control
for
all
aspects
of
underground
and
surface
configuration.
Surveying
activities
currently
consist
of,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following:

a
Underground
site
configuration,
controi,
and
update
a
Surface
site
configuration,
control,
and
update
a
Operations
and
engineering
support
8
Geotechnical
ground
control
support
Surface
subsidence
monitoring
These
acfivities
are
implemented
and
controlled
by
this
document,
Federal
Geodetic
Control
Subcommittee
(FGCS)
standards,
and
#eWP
A
3­
1
WlPP
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description
(QAPD).

1.1
The
Surveying
Program
provides
surveying
services
and
information
to
any
section
or
group
within
the
W1D
Engineering
Department
for
planning,
engineering
andlor
documentation
purposes.
The
Surveying
Program
also
provides
basic
information
to
other
WID
sections
and
departments
so
that
the
safe
disposal
of
transuranic
(TRU)
and
mixed
waste
can
be
demonstrated
both
in
the
short­
term
(during
the
operational
life
of
the
faciiity)
and
in
the
long­
term
(following
decommissioning),
while
satisfying
all
regulations
governing
permanent
isolation
of
the
waste.
The
program
provides
construction
surveying
for
WID
engineering,
planning,
and
documentation
purposes,
but
does
not
include
construction
surveying
for
contractors.
Drivers
for
this
program
include
the
Compliance
Certification
Application,
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Act,
the
Mine
­Safety.
and
Health
Act,
and
Waste
isolation
Pilot
Plant
(WIPP)
System
Design
Descriptions
(SDDs).
The
program
also
helps
ensure
the
facility
operates
safely
and
that
the
data
are
available
to
make
decisions
for
managing
and
performing
engineering
and
operational
activities.
Each
surveying
activity
is
controlled
by
this
Surveying
Program
that
describes
the
general
scope
of
the
survey,
its
methodology,
and
quality
assurance
(QA)
requirements.

1
To
satisfy
the
listed
regulatory
drivers,
certain
activities
and
functions
are
required
of
the
Mine
Engineering
Surveying
Section.
These
commitments
are
listed
as
follows:

J
Perform
an
annual
subsidence
monitoring
survey
Publish
an
annual
report
of
subsidence
survey
data,
including
a
comparison
with
prior
years
data
0
Maintain,
replace,
and
expand
the
subsidence
monument
network,
as
required
Maintain
state­
of­
the­
art
leveling
equipment
and
capability
­I
.2
0
Surveying
was
one
of
the
first
activities
to
take
place
at
the
WlPP
site.
Coordinates
for
the
site
were
brought
in
from
the
National
Geodetic
Survey
(NGS)
monument
ORustlerO.
New
Mexico
State
Plane
Coordinates
North
American
Datum
of
1927
(NAD
27)
are
used
at
the
WlPP
for
control.
In
general
practice
at
the
WIPP,
these
coordinates
are
truncated
for
use
as
the
site
coordinate
system.
To
arrive
at
the
site
coordinates,
490,000
feet
was
dropped
from
the
Northing
and
660,000
feet
was
dropped
from
the
Easting
of
the
New
Mexico
State
Plane
Coordinates
NAD
27.
The
base
point
for
t
h
e
WlPP
site
was
the
section
corner
common
to
Sections
20,
21
,
28,
and
29
in
T.
22
S.,
R.
31
E.
During
1986,
a
surveying
contractor
was
retained
to
resurvey
the
site
to
bring
in
coordinates
and
transfer
them
underground.
Surveys
were
run
from
the
NGS
monuments
UBerryfl
and
I]
5rininstool,
fl
using
NAD
27
values.
Because
the
originai
base
point
had
been
lost,
a
new
base
point
(PT
30)
was
chosen
and
new
plant
coordinates
were
calculated
for
all
existing
points.
It
is
important
to
remember
that
plant
coordinates
are
on
a
rectangular
grid
while
State
Plane
Coordinates
take
into
account
that
the
earth
is
a
spheroid.
It
is
not
possible
to
make
a
direct
comparison
of
the
two
systems
for
more
than
one
point
at
a
time.

In
1993,
a
resurvey
of
the
underground
was
conducted.
Horizontal
locations
were
traversed,
and
the
true
bearings
were
checked
using
a
gyro­
compass.
Additionally,
a
level
survey
was
conducted
through
20
benchmarks
located
throughout
the
underground.
Because
of
salt
creep,
the
horizontal
location
points
are
placed
in
the
roof
on
the
center
line
of
the
drifts
and
vertical
benchmarks
are
placed
in
the
drift
walls
at
approximately
mid­
height
of
the
drift.

..
.
The
vertical
surveying
monitoring
commitments
in
the
Gempkscc:
Cs+&
ez&
w
Ap@
s&
m+
CCAfdivides
the
monitoring
into
three
phases:
developmental,
operational,
and
post­
closure.
During
the
initial
developmental
phase,
31
4
kilometers
of
First
Order,
Class
I
survey
was
performed
by
the
NGS
in
1977.
The
NGS
network
was
resurveyed
in
1981
and
the
relative
movement
between
Carlsbad
and
the
WlPP
site
was
measured
to
be
about
2
centimeters.
The
relative
motion
across
the
network
..

2
WIPP
Underground
8a
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
1
was
down
to
the
east
and
up
to
the
west.
The
1981
NGS
survey
also
established
new
survey
lines
that
connected
the
previous
First
Order
benchmarks
through
Carlsbad
to
Second
Order
survey
lines
through
Eunice
and
Hobbs
Turing
this
survey,
benchmarks
were
placed
over
the
Nash
Draw
from
the
north
end
tu
ihe
Remuda
Basin,
over
potash
mines,
the
WlPP
site,
and
the
San
Simon
Sink.

Independent
of
the
NGS
work,
but
using
the
established
First
Order,
Class
1
NGS
benchmarks,
an
additional
52
benchmarks
were
installed
by
surveying
companies
working
under
contract
to
WIPP.
The
benchmarks
were
installed
in
a
grid
on
approximately
1,000­
foot
centers.
This
grid
covers
the
WlPP
planned
repository
and
extends
about
1,000
feet
beyond
the
edge
of
the
planned
?xtent
of
the
waste
panels.
Second
Order,
Class
I
t
FGCS
specifications
were
used
for
these
benchmarks.
This
work
was
completed
in
1986.

A
Global
Positioning
Survey
(GPS)
was
conducted
in
1994
by
the
WlPP
Site
Survey
Section
in
conjunction
with
a
contractor.
The
GPS
was
used
to
check
horizontal
control
and
independently
verify
the
Second
Order,
Class
I
I
subsidence
survey
conducted
in
1994.
In
1996,
the
WlPP
Site
Survey
Section,
in
conjunction
with
a
contractor,
performed
a
First
Order,
CIass
I
level
survey
from
the
Berry
Monument,
20
miles
east
of
the
WlPP
site.
The
survey
went
over
the
52
existing
subsidence
monuments
at
the
site
and
back
to
the
Berry
Monument.

At
the
start
of
the
closure
phase,
it
is
anticipated
that
a
review
of
all
past
subsidence
surveys
and
the
adequacy
of
the
existing
subsidence
stations
will
be
conducted.
New
subsidence
stations,
if
needed,
will
be
installed
to
FGCS
standards.
A
survey
that
achieves
First
Order,
Class
I
accuracy
may
then
be
conducted.
Information
from
this
survey
will
be
combined
with
published
information
from
all
previous
work
to
form
a
baseline
database
for
subsidence
information
in
accordance
with
the
CCA.
The
CCA
states
that
this
post­
closure
survey
is
to
be
repeated
in
three
years.
Thence,
it
is
to
be
repeated
every
ten
years
for
the
next
100
years,
or
until
the
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
determines
that
further
surveys
are
not
required.

The
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce
is
responsible
for
establishing
and
maintaining
basic
control
networks
for
the
nation.
The
Department
of
Commerce
carries
this
out
through
the
NGS
which
establishes
surveys,
then
adjusts
and
publishes
the
results
on
horizontal
and
vertical
geodetic
control
networks.
As
part
of
the
control
program,
the
FGCS
prepares
classification
and
standards
for
geodetic
control
surveys.
The
following
tables
outline
general
requirements
for
horizontal
and
vertical
control.

3
WIPP
Underground
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
l
4
WlPP
Underground
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
04,
Rev.
1
Horizontal
surveys
at
the
WlPP
are
conducted
to
FGCS
accuracy
standards
for
Second
Order,
Class
I
I
surveys.
The
Second
Order,
Class
11
level
of
accuracy
is
the
standard
recommended
for
the
type
of
surveying
performed
at
the
WlPP
by
the
FGCS.
It
was
also
established
as
such
by
the
original
design
basis
documents
and
is
carried
through
into
t
h
e
AUOO
SDD.
First
Order,
Class
I
results
are
routinely
obtained
by
the
WIPP
Site
Surveying
Section.
Subsidence
surveys
are
carried
out
in
the
same
manner
as
vertical
surveys.
In
subsidence
measurements,
the
error
is
determined
by
both
the
equipment
used
and
the
distances
between
the
stations.
As
defined
by
the
FGCS
a
First
Order,
Class
I
level
survey
has
a
maximum
loop
error
of
4mm
JK
where
K
is
the
length
of
survey
loop
in
Kilometers.
A
Second
Order,
Class
II
level
survey
has
a
maximum
loop
error
of
8mm
JK
or
two
times
the
error
of
a
First
Order
survey.
Technoiogical
advances
in
electronic
digital
levels
allow
the
user
to
obtain
numerical
results
that
far
exceed
the
minimum
Second
Order,
Class
II
standard.

2.0
ADM
1
N
l
STRATI
ON
2.1
Oraanization
The
organizational
structure
of
the
WID
is
described
in
]

5
WiPF
Underground
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
1
WP
13­
1.
The
Mine
Engineering
Site
Surveying
Section
reports
to
the
Mine
Engineering
Manager.
The
underground
and
surface
Surveying
Program
is
within
the
cognizance
of
the
AUOO
System.

2.2
The
Mine
Engineering
Site
Surveying
Section
cognizant
engineer
and
staff
are
responsible
for
achieving
and
maintaining
quality
in
the
Mine
Engineering
Site
Surveying
S
ect
io
n.

2.3
Personnel
who
perform
specific
tasks
associated
with
surveying,
surveying
data
collection,
survey
data
reduction,
and
Quality
Control
measures
are
trained
and
qualified
in
the
application
of
the
specific
requirements
to
complete
their
tasks.
Minimum
training
for
Engineering
personnel
is
identified
in
the
­WP
09.
Engineering
Conduct
of
Operations.

3.0
TECHNICAL
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
The
VJIPP
Underground
and
Surface
Surveying
Program
is
divided
into
three
parts:
underground,
surface,
and
subsidence
monitoring.
Underground
and
surface
surveying
covers
all
surveying
performed
underground
and
on
the
surface
to
provide
location,
alignment
and
elevation
information
for
all
departments
concerned
with
surface
operations
and
TRU
waste
handling.
Control
points
are
maintained
upon
which
the
location,
alignments,
and
elevations
are
based.
This
information
is
also
used
for
updating
existing
drawings
and
surface
maps.
Subsidence
monitoring
provides
for
leveling
and
horizontal
control
of
all
the
subsidence
monuments
within
the
16
square
miles
of
the
surface
properties
(WIPP
Land
Withdrawal
Area).
These
surveys
are
either
conducted
by
the
WlPP
Surveying
Section
personnel,
or
by
qualified
contractorhendor
personnel
under
the
direct
supervision
of
the
WlPP
Mine
Engineering
Surveying
Section.
Finally,
this
plan
gives
the
Mine
Engineering
Surveying
Section
the
flexibility
to
provide
qualified
surveys
and
survey
information
to
any
other
internal
WID
section,
provided
the
request
is
approved
by
the
Mine
Engineering
manager.

3.1
Underaround
Survevincl
Proaram
The
purpose
of
the
Underground
Surveying
Program
is
to
maintain
accurate
location
information
of
the
underground
structures
and
to
provide
alignment
for
new
excavations.
The
Underground
Surveying
Program
ensures
continuing
confirmation
of
underground
configuration
through
surveys.
These
surveys
generate
data
that
are
used
in
underground
planning,
underground
extensions
and
TRU
and
mixed
waste
emplacement.
Information
from
the
surveys
is
used
to
document
the
existing
extent,

6
WIPP
Underground
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
1
size,
and
location
of
the
entries
crosscuts,
panels,
and
rooms
of
the
underground.
Activities
associated
with
this
program
include
control
surveys,
level
surveys,
alignment
point
installation,
grade
point
installation,
laser
alignment,
and
as­
found
surveys.
Other
surveying
activities
are
performed
as
needed.

Underground
surveying
is
the
only
way
to
provide
information
for
the
construction
and
precise
location
of
underground
structures.
Because
of
the
safety
constraints
inherent
in
handling
and
emplacement
of
TRU
and
mixed
waste
in
the
WIPP
underground,
state­
of­
the­
art
surveying
equipment
and
methods
are
used.
The
Underground
Surveying
Program
provides
information
basic
to
the
design,
construction,
and
operation
of
the
repository.

3.1.
q
Methodology
Routine
underground
surveys
are
carried
out
in
accordance
with
common
industry
practice,
and
in
accordance
with
standards
specified
by
the
FGCS.
Other
surveys
which
are
in
development,
or
are
not
routine
are
performed
in
accordance
with
common
industry
practice,
or
individual
program
plans.

a.
Routine
Survevs
Horizontal
Control
Surveys
­
Horizontal
Control
Surveys
are
made
as
the
repository
is
excavated
to
provide
accurate
location
of
existing
and
planned
openings.

Vertical
Control
Surveys
­
Vertical
Control
Surveys
are
made
as
the
repository
is
excavated
to
provide
precise
elevation
and
vertical
control
of
existing
and
planned
openings.

Alignment
Surveys
­
Alignment
Surveys
are
performed
as
required
to
provide
alignment
and
grade
points
for
mining
operations
as
excavation
of
the
repository
proceeds.
Alignment
Surveys
include
the
setting
of
laser
alignment
instruments
to
coincide
with
the
horizontal
control
grade
points.

Mapping
Surveys
­
Mapping
Surveys
provide
information
of
the
existing
location,
size,
and
shape
of
the
underground
structures.

Location
Surveys
­
Location
Surveys.
provide
precise
location
information
on
geotechnical
instruments
and
stationary
underground
structures.

b.
Other
Underqround
Surveying
Activities
Other
underground
surveying
activities
are
performed
as
required.
An
example
of
other
surveying
activities
might
include
a
shaft
piunbing
survey.

7
WIPP
Underground
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
1
C.

All
survey
data
are
collected
electronically,
downloaded,
and
processed
using
approved
software
programs.
Distribution
of
information
is
accomplished
by
electronic
files.
A
hard
copy
is
provided
to
a
customer
as
required.
Storage
of
survey
information
js
maintained
on
the
Survey
Section's
computers,
and
a
back­
up
file
resides
on
the
WIPP
Intranet.
A
hard
copy
of
the
information
is
also
maintained
in
the
Survey
Section
files.

3.2
The
purpose
of
the
Surface
Surveying
Program
is
to
maintain
accurate
location
information
of
surface
structures
and
to
provide
location
and
topographical
information
for
planning
and
construction
of
new
surface
structures.
The
Surface
Surveying
Program
ensures
continuing
confirmation
of
site
configuration
through
surface
surveys.
These
surveys
generate
data
that
is
used
in
site
planning
and
new
surface
projects.
Information
from
the
surveys
is
used
to
document
the
existing
extent,
size,
and
location
of
the
site
facilities
as
they
exist.
Activities
associated
with
this
program
include
control
surveys,
level
surveys,
and
existing
condition
surveys.
Other
surveying
activities
are
performed
on
an
"as
needed"
basis.

Surface
surveying
is
the
only
way
to
provide
information
of
the
construction
and
precise
location
of
facility
structures.
Because
of
the
safety
constraints
inherent
in
handling
of
TRU
and
mixed
waste
at
the
WIPP,
state
of
the
art
surveying
equipment
and
methods
are
obtained
and
used.
The
Surface
Surveying
Program
provides
information
basic
to
the
design,
construction,
and
operation
of
the
surface
facilities.

3.2.1
Meth
odo
I
og
y
Surveys
performed
on
a
routine
basis
are
carried
out
in
accordance
with
common
industry
practice,
and
in
accordance
with
standards
specified
by
the
FGCS.
Other
surveys
which
are
in
development,
or
are
not
routine
are
performed
in
accordance
with
common
industry
practice,
or
individual
program
plans.

a.
Routine
Surveys
Horizontal
Control
Surveys
­
Horizontal
Control
Surveys
are
made
as
needed
for
horizontal
control.

Vertical
Control
Surveys
­
Vertical
Control
Surveys
are
made
as
needed
for
vertical
control
,

Topographic
Surveys
­
Topographic
Surveys
are
performed
as
required
to
provide
8
WIPP
Underground
8
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
61,
Rev.
1
planning
and
construction
information
for
surface
projects.

Mapping
Surveys
­
Mapping
Surveys
provide
information
of
the
existing
location,
size,
and
shape
of
existing
surface
facilities.

b.
Other
Surface
Surveying
Activities
Other
surface
surveying
activities
will
be
performed
as
required.
An
exampie
of
other
surveying
activities
might
include
a
GPS
Survey.

C.
Data
Processing,
Distribution,
and
Storage
All
survey
data
are
collected
electronicaily,
downloaded,
and
processed
using
approved
programs.
Distribution
of
information
is
accomplished
by
electronic
files.
A
hard
copy
is
also
provided
to
a
customer,
if
needed.
Storage
of
survey
information
is
maintained
on
the
Survey
Section's
computers
and
a
backup
file
resides
on
the
WlPP
Intranet.
A
hard
copy
of
the
information
is
also
maintained
in
the
Survey
Section's
files.
,

3.3
@

Subsidence
is
defined
as
the
tertical
movement
of
the
land
surface
anywhere
within
a
defined
subs
i
den
ce
bas
i
n
.
S
peci
f
i
ca
I
I
y
,
subs
i
den
ce
monitoring
comprises
the
p
re
ci
se
measurement
of
the
relative
vertical
movement
of
the
land
surface
which
can
be
in
the
form
of
uplift
(upwards
movement)
or
subsidence
(downwards
movement)
relative
to
an
assumed
fixed
reference
point.
The
fixed
reference
point
is
assumed
to
be
fixed
since
it
is
placed
outside
the
subsidence
basin.
However,
it
is
also
subject
to
some
of
the
same
factors
and
processes
that
affect
and
cause
surface
movement.
Thus,
it
may
also
be
in
motion.
The
techniques
used
to
monitor
subsidence
measure
the
vertical
height
difference
between
an
array
of
markers
on
the
surface
and
is
typically
performed
with
a
leveling
survey.
Under
normal
conditions,
one
reference
benchmark
(ideally,
one
outside
the
potential
subsidence
basin)
is
utilized
as
the
standard
and
the
relative
movement
of
other
stations
or
benchmarks
are
compared
to
it
in
order
to
detect
vertical
differential
movement
over
a
period
of
time.

Subsidence
can
be
caused
by
a
number
of
factors.
Potential
examples
could
include
mining,
hydrocarbon
(petroleum)
exploration
and
production,
petroleum
production­
related
water
injection
and
disposal,
water
well
drilling
and
completion,
geoiogical
deformation,
and
dissolution.
Nash
Draw
is
a
major
subsidence
feature
near
the
WIPP,
caused
by
the
dissolution
of
evaporites
in
the
upper
Salado
and
lower
Rustler
formations.
Near
the
WIPP,
localized
mine­
induced
subsidence
is
associated
with
areas
where
pillars
were
removed
during
second­
pass
extraction
in
potash
mines.

Subsidence
monitoring
of
the
surface
area
over
the
underground
excavations
is
a
consequence
of
several
government
and
WID
requirements.
The
WlPP
SDD
AUOO
9
WlPB
Underground
8n
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
04,
Rev.
1
­2.2.1
.e
states,
"The
design
of
the
mine
will
result
in
no
more
than
one
inch
surface
subsidence
within
500
feet
of
the
waste
shaft."
This
is
one
of
the
original
design
parameters
to
assure
protection
of
the
WlPP
surface
structures.
The
size
of
the
underground
shaft
pillar
area
and
the
layout
of
the
WlPP
mine
plan
is
based
on
this
parameter
among
others.
Calculations
to
assure
this
low
level
of
subsidence
around
the
waste
shaft
were
made
by
the
WlPP
architectslengineers.

The
AUOO
SDD
document
is
the
driver
for
the
annual
subsidence
survey
around
the
WlPP
shaft
and
is
conducted
according
to
the
specifications
of
a
Second
Order,
Class
I
I
Survey
as
stated
by
the
FGCS.
This
classification
allows
for
a
maximum
of
about
215
inch
vertical
error
per
mile
of
survey.
Thus,
the
maximum
survey
error
is
small
enough
that
it
will
not
mask
any
subsidence
that
might
occur
within
500
feet
of
the
Waste
Shaft.

The
Subsidence
Monitoring
Program
monitors
vertical
ground
movement
over
the
underground
openings
at
WIPP.
Monitoring
stations
were
installed
on
the
surface
over
the
completed
and
planned
underground
excavations
in
a
grid
with
spacing
of
approximately
1,000
feet.
Precise
level
surveys
are
conducted
annually
to
determifie
any
surface
movement
of
the
subsidence
stations.

Subsidence
monitoring
was
selected
by
the
DOE
as
a
basic
long­
term
monitoring
tool.
The
initial
subsidence
survey
is
considered
as
the
baseline
condition.
Because
subsidence
monitoring
is
performed
annually,
it
is
also
useful
as
an
active
institutional
control
(short­
term)
tool.
Subsidence
monitoring
is
non­
intrusive
by
nature
and
can
be
related
to
numerical
assessments.
Subsidence
monitoring
can
detect
substantial
and
detrimental,
or
slight
and
insignificant
deviations
from
expected
repository
performance
by
comparing
current
subsidence
values
to
previous
loop
surveys.
Subsidence
monitoring
can
be
implemented
independent
of
site
utilities,
providing
useful
data
for
a
reasonable
cost
over
a
relatively
long
time
period,
and
requires
minimum
maintenance
to
sustain
a
high­
quality
performance
level.

Subsidence
monitoring
provides
information
on
vertical
surface
movement
in
mining
areas
due
to
creep
closure
of
underground
openings.
This
closure
results
in
a
subsidence
basin
on
the
surface
the
extent
of
which
depends
on
the
underground
extraction.
Establishing
permanent
stations
over
the
underground
openings
and
perjodically
traversing
through
these
stations
with
precise
level
surveys
can
determine
the
subsidence
profile,
provided
these
surveys
are
continued
far
enough
into
the
future
to
allow
the
subsidence
to
reach
the
surface.

The
Backfill
Engineering
Analysis
Report,
(WEC
1994),
evaluates
the
potential
for,
and
predicts
subsidence
caused
by,
the
mining
of
the
WIPP's
shafts,
drifts,
and
waste
disposal
rooms.
These
calculations
account
for
a
range
of
emplaced
waste
volumes,
waste
densities,
and
backfill
types.
Subsidence
was
also
calculated
for
conditions
where
no
backfill
would
be
used.

10
WPP
Underground
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
'l
This
study
predicts
the
maximum
subsidence
expected,
and
was
performed
to
specifically
estimate
subsidence
for
long­
term
repository
performance
monitoring
and,
as
such,
do
not
account
for
other
factors
that
may
influence
subsidence
such
as
local
petroleum
expioration
and
production,
and
potash
mining.

The
Surveying
Subsidence
Program
provides
the
capability
to
assess
the
responses
of
the
surface
and
underground
facility
due
to
surface
subsidence.

3.3.1
Methodology
The
activities
associated
with
the
Subsidence
Program
are
designed
to:

Provide
time­
related
spatial
information
on
surface
subsidence
within
an
area
of
500
feet
of
the
waste
shaft
during
the
operational
phase
of
the
repository
0
Provide
time­
related
spatial
information
on
surface
subsidence
over
the
influence
area
of
the
underground
openings
with
which
subsidence
predictions
can
be
compared
e
Maintain
a
database
of
subsidence
data
e
Provide
an
annual
written
report
during
the
operational
phase
The
process
by
which
subsidence
information
is
obtained
may
change
with
changing
technology.
Nothing
in
this
plan
will
limit
the
adoption
of
new
technology
provided
the
performance
of
subsidence
surveys
follow
the
specifications
described
in
the
FGCS
specifications
and
procedures
for
subsidence
leveling
surveys.

The
following
are
activities
of
the
Subsidence
Program:

Subsidence
Station
Maintenance
­
Subsidence
stations
are
maintained
as
needed.
Restoration,
replacement,
and
installation
of
new
stations
will
be
petformed
according
to
FGCS
specifications
and
procedures
for
Second
Order,
Class
II
Surveys.

Testinq
­When
in
use,
daily
tests
are
performed
on
all
equipment
used
to
ensure
proper
operation
and
calibration.

Subsidence
Surveys
­
Subsidence
surveys
are
performed
annually
until
closure.
After
closure,
in
accordance
with
t
h
e
CCA,
subsidence
surveys
will
be
performed
on
the
first
and
third
year,
then
at
ten­
year
intervals
for
the
next
100
years,
or
as
long
as
DOE
deems
necessary.

Report
and
Database.­
A
report
is
generated
each
year
that
details
the
current
subsidence
survey
and
summarizes
previous
year's
values.
Survey
information
will
be
11
WWP
Underground
8
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
2
maintained
in
electronic
files
in
two
locations.
Backup
electronic
files
of
the
information
are
maintained
on
the
WIPP
Intranet.

4.8
QUAhlfY
ASSU
The
WIPP
Surveying
Engineering
Programs
are
governed
by
W
w
#lssufm­
into
the
technicat
processes
used
for
Surveying
Engineering
activities,
as
needed.
The
Mine
Engineering
manager,
or
assigned
designee,
is
responsible
for
developing
and
maintaining
this
program.
Surveying
and
subsidence
surveying
at
the
WlPP
performed
by
qualified
contractor/
vendor
personnel
are
under
the
direct
supervision
of
the
WlPP
Mine
Engineering
Site
Survey
Section.
Vendor
personnel
who
perform
surveying­
related
work
must
meet
the
following
minimum
standards:
.
Steps
to
ensure
quality
wi2
be
incorporated
0
Five
years
experience
in
field
surveying
Demonstrated
proficiency
in
the
use
of
various
precision
leveling
equipment
specified
for
the
monitoring
prsgram(
s)

a
Demonstrated
proficiency
in
the
use
of
various
related
surveying
software
specified
for
the
monitoring
prograrn(
s)

Demonstrated
proficiency
in
the
use
of
various
GPS­
related
equipment
and
software
4.1
Survev
Equimnent
Control
Survey
equipment
processes
use
sound
surveying/
scientific
principles
and
appropriate
standards.
The
WIPP's
QA
program
and
WID
Engineering
require
that
tests
be
performed
on
all
equipment
when
in
use
to
ensure
proper
operation
and
calibration.

Surveying
equipment
are
controlled
and
calibrated
in
accordance
with
WlPP
procedures.
Results
of
calibrations,
maintenance,
and
repair
will
be
documented.
Calibration
records
will
identify
the
reference
standard
and
the
relationship
to
national
and
international
standards
or
nationally­
accepted
measurement
systems.
Calibration
reports
and
operability
tests
are
maintained
by
the
WlPP
Metrology
Lab,

W
W
P
10­
AD.
01
WlPP
Metrology
Program
requires,
at
a
minimum
of
every
two
years
or
in
accordance
with
manufacturerus
recommendations,
all
equipment
be
given
complete
maintenance
and
calibration
checks
by
approved
vendor(
s)
or
a
qualified
laboratory
to
ensure
the
equipment
is
properly
calibrated
and/
or
in
proper
working
condition.
For
subsidence
measurement
equipment,
maintenance
and
calibration
are
performed
by
approved
vendors
in
accordance
with
national
standards.
Equipment
is
maintained
and
calibrated
by
vendors
on
the
WIPP
QA­
approved
Qualified
Supplier's
12
WlPP
Underground
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
1
List.
The
W1PP
QA
will
process
and
ensure
the
adequacy
of
routine
maintenance
performed
by
the
vendor.

4.2
Procurement
Procurement
of
equipment
is
carried
out
in
accordance
with
the
appropriate
poiicies
and
procedures
for
Design
Class
I
1
1B
equipment.
Technical
requiren
rents
and
services
will
be
developed
and
specified
in
procurement
documents.
If
deemed
necessary,
these
documents
will
require
suppliers
to
have
an
adequate
QA
program
to
ensure
that
required
character
ist
i
cs
are
attained
.

4.3
Qual
jty­
affecting
activities
performed
by,
or
on
behalf
of,
the
Surveying
Programs
are
performed
in
accordance
with
FGCS
standards,
WIPP­
approved
work
instructions,
andor
WIPP­
approved
written
plans.

4.4
Document
Control
The
Mine
Engineering
manager
identifies
the
individuals
responsible
for
the
preparation,
review,
and
approval
of
Surveying
Engineering
controlled
documents.
Documents
generated
as
a
result
of
the
subsidence
surveys
are
reviewed
by
cognizant
technical
EngiT­
ieering
perso'nnel
to
ensure
their
adequacy
and
accuracy.
Controlled
documents
are
reviewed
in
accordance
with
DOE
and
DOE/
WIPP
QuaMy
AsswaxeQ&
Review
­
procedures.

4.5
Control
of
Purchased
Material,
EauiDmentlServices
Measures
are
taken,
in
accordance
with
current
WlPP
procurement
policies
and
procedures,
to
ensure
that
procured
items
and
services
conform
to
specified
requirements.
These
measures
will
generally
include
one
or
more
of
the
following:

Evaluation
of
the
supplier's
capability
to
provide
items
or
services,
in
accordance
with
requirements,
including
the
previous
record
in
providing
similar
products
or
services
satisfactorily
e
Evaluation
of
objective
evidence
of
conformance,
such
as
supplier
submittals
e
Examination
and
testing
of
items
or
services
upon
delivery
I
f
it
is
determined
that
additional
measures
are
required
to
ensure
quality
in
a
specific
procurement,
additional
steps
may
be
provided
for
procurement
documents
and
implemented
by
Surveying
Engineering
personnel
and/
or
the
Quality
and
Regulatory
Assurance
Department.
These
additionai
assurances
may
include
source
inspection
13
WIPP
Underground
86
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
1
and
audits
or
surveillances
at
the
supplier's
facilities.

Measures
are
used
to
ensure
that
only
correct
and
accepted
items
are
used
at
the
WIPP.
All
items
that
potentially
affect
the
quatity
of
the
Surveying
Engineering
Programs
will
be
identified
and
controlled
to
ensure
traceability
and
prevent
the
use
of
incorrect
or
defective
items.

4.7
Computer
program
testing
activities
that
affect
quality­
related
activities
performed
by
the
WID
or
their
suppliers
are
accomplished
in
accordance
with
approved
procedures
as
specified
by
the
W
W
P
13­
1,

Test
requirements
and
acceptance
criteria
will
be
specified,
documented,
and
reviewed
and
will
be
based
upon
applicable
design
or
other
pertinent
technical
documents.
Required
tests,
including
verification,
hardware
integration,
and
in­
use
tests,
will
be
controlled.

Testing
of
software
will
verify
the
capability
of
the
computer
program
to
produce
valid
results
for
test
probiems
encompassing
the
range
of
permitted
use
defined
by
the
program
d
o
w
men
ta
t
ion.

Depending
upon
the
complexity
of
the
computer
program
being
tested,
requirements
may
range
from
a
single
test
of
the
completed
computer
program
to
a
series
of
tests
performed
at
various
stages
of
computer
program
development
to
verify
correct
translation
between
stages
and
proper
working
of
individual
modules.
This
is
followed
by
an
overall
computer
program
test.

Regardless
of
the
number
of
stages
of
testing
performed,
verification
testing
and
validation
will
be
of
sufficient
scope
and
depth
to
establish
that
test
requirements
are
satisfied
and
that
the
software
produces
a
valid
result
for
its
intended
function.

4.8
Handling,
storage,
and
shipping
of
surveying
equipment
will
be
coordinated
in
accordance
with
the
manufacturer's
recommendations.

4.9
Control
of
Nonconforminq
Conditionslitems
Conditions
adverse
to
quality
will
be
documented
and
classified
with
regard
to
their
significance.
Gorrective
actions
will
be
taken
accordingly.

14
WIPP
Underground
&
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
1
Equipment
that
does
not
conform
to
specified
requirements
will
be
controlled
to
prevent
its
use.
Faulty
items
will
be
tagged
and
segregated.
Repaired
equipment
will
be
subject
to
the
original
acceptance
inspections
and
tests
prior
to
use.

4.10
Conditions
adverse
to
acceptable
quality
will
be
documented
and
reported
in
accordance
with
corrective
action
procedures
and
corrected
as
soon
as
practical.
Immediate
action
will
be
taken
to
control
work,
and
its
results,
performed
under
conditions
adverse
to
acceptable
quality
in
order
to
prevent
degradation
in
quality.

The
Mine
Engineering
manager,
or
designee,
will
investigate
any
deficiencies
in
activities.

4.11
Records
Manaqernent
Identification,
preparation,
collection,
storage,
maintenance,
disposition,
and
permanent
storage
of
records
will
be
in
accordance
with
approved
WlPP
procedures.

Generation
of
records
will
accurately
reflect
completed
work
and
facility
conditions
while
complying
with
statutory
or
contractual
requirements.
Records
will
be
transferred
and
protected
from
loss
and
damage
in
accordance
with
w
e
s
­

m
W
P
15­
PR,
WlPP
Records
Management
Program.
.c
4.12
Audits
and
lndemndent
Assessment
Planned
and
periodic
assessments
will
be
conducted
to
measure
management
item
quality
and
process
effectiveness,
and
to
promote
improvement.
The
organization
performing
independent
assessments
will
have
sufficient
authority
to
carry
out
its
responsibilities.
Persons
conducting
technical
assessments
will
be
technically
qualified
and
knowledgeable
of
the
items
and
processes
to
be
assessed.

4.13
Data
Reduction
and
Verification
Computer
programs,
commercial
data
processing
applications,
and
manual
calculations
that
collect
or
maniputateheduce
data
will
be
verified.
Verification
must
be
performed
before
the
presentation
of
final
results
of
their
use
in
subsequent
activities,
WlJ!
becomes
necessary
to
present
or
use
unchecked
results,
transmittals,
and
subsequent
calculations
will
be
marked
"DRAFT"
until
such
time
that
the
results
are
verified
and
determined
to
be
correct.

5.0
IMPLEMENTATION
MATRIX
5.1
WID
Mine
Enaineerinq
15
WIPP
Underground
8
Surface
Surveying
Program
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Rev.
1
WID
Mine
Engineering
will
be
the
cognizant
technical
organization
with
regard
to
the
implementation
of
the
WIPP
Underground
and
Surface
Surveying
Program,
including
Subsidence
Monitoring.
As
such,
WID
Mine
Engineering
is
responsible
for
the
perform
a
nce
,
rn
e
t
hod0
I
og
y
,
ca
1
cu
I
at
i
o
n
s
,
and
other
associated
activities
i
nvo
I
vi
n
g
the
collection,
interpretation,
and
presentation
of
required
data
necessary
to
implement
the
program
at
the
WIPP.
For
surface
surveys
outside
the
protected
area,
Mine
Engineering
personnel
will
ensure
compliance
with
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
(NEPA),
if/
as
applicable,
prior
to
initiating
survey
activities.
WID
Mine
Engineering
is
also
responsible
for
the
Annual
Subsidence
Monitoring
Survey
Report
as
well
as
all
other
necessary
documentation.
The
Annual
Subsidence
Monitoring
Survey
Report
will
be
published
within
each
calendar
year
as
a
DOE
document.

6.0
REFER
Backfill
Engineering
Analysis
Report,
IT
Corporation,
(1
994)

WP
13­
1
,
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description
Compliance
Certification
Application
Classification,
Standards
of
Accuracy,
and
General
Specifications
of
Geodetic
Control
Surveys,
Federal
Geodetic
Control
Committee
(now
Federal
Geodetic
Control
Subcommittee),
[I
9751
1980,
Reprint
16
W
I
October
1998
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
Table
of
Contents
......................................................................................................
1
.
Introduction
1
2
.
Equipment
........................................................................................................
1
3
.
Office
Processing
.............................................................................................
1
4
.
Methodology
.....................................................................................................
1
5.
t
Accuracy
Summary
by
Loop
.......................................................................
5
6
.
Adjusted
Level
Loops
.......................................................................................
8
7
.
Adjusted
Elevations
(1
998)
..............................................................................
9
5
.
General
Summary
of
Results
...........................................................................
4
.
..............................................................................
8
Comparison
of
Elevations
10
List
of
Tables
Table
1
.
Description
of
1998
Leveling
Loops
......................................................
4
Table
3.
Detailed
Loop
Measurements
...............................................................
6
Table
2.
Summary
of
Distance
and
Accuracy
for
1998
Leveling
Loops
..............
4
Table
4
.
Adjusted
Elevations
by
Loop
.................................................................
8
Table
5
.
1998
Adjusted
Elevations
......................................................................
9
List
of
Figures
Figure
1
.
Individual
Loops.
Total
Loop.
and
Underground
Excavations
..............
3
I
List
of
Acronyms
DOE
Department
of
Energy
DOY
Day
of
year
FGCS
Federal
Geodetic
Control
Subcommittee
M&
IE
Measurement
and
Test
Equipment
NGS
National
Geodetic
Survey
WID
Waste
Isolation
Division
WlPP
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
References
Classification,
Standards
of
Accuracy,
and
General
Specifications
of
Geodetic
Control
Surveys,
Federal
Geodetic
Control
Committee
(now
Federal
Geodetic
Control
Subcommittee),
I19751
1980,
Reprint.

Interim
FGCS
Specifications
and
Procedures
to
Incorporate
Electronic
Digital
/
Bar­
Code
Leveling
Systems,
Federal
Geodetic
Control
Subcommittee,
ver.
4.0,
dated
July
15,1994.

WlPP
Subsidence
Monument
Leveling
Surveys
1986­
7997,
DOE
I
WlPP
98­
2293,
June
1998.

ii
DQEWIPP
99­
2293
I
.
Introduction
Sections
2
through
7
of
this
report
define
the
result
of
the
1998
leveling
survey
through
the
subsidence
monuments
at
the
WIPP
site.
Approximately
18
miles
of
leveling
was
completed
through
ten
vertical
control
loops.
The
1998
survey
includes
the
determination
of
elevation
on
each
of
the
52
existing
subsidence
monuments
and
the
WlPP
baseline
survey,
and
14
of
the
National
Geodetic
Survey's
(NGS)
vertical
control
points.
Digital
leveling
techniques
were
utilized
to
achieve
better
than
Second
Order
Class
I
I
loop
closures
as
outlined
by
the
Federal
Geodetic
Control
Subcommittee
(FGCS).
The
field
observations
were
completed
during
September
and
October
of
1998
by
personnel
from
the
Waste
Isolation
Division
(WID)
Surveying
Group,
Mine
Engineering
Section,
Engineerirrg
Department.

Finally,
Section
8
contains
Table
6,
which
summarizes
the
elevations
for
all
surveys
from
1986
through
1998,
inclusive.
A
detailed
listing
of
the
1986
through
1997
surveys
is
contained
in
the
report,
WPP
Subsidence
Monument
beveling
Surveys
1986­
1997,
DOWIPP
98­
2293.

2.
Equipment
The
observations
were
taker!
with
the
WILD
NA3003
Electronic
Digital
Level
(WIPP
M&
TE
ID#
0999)
manufactured
by
Leica,
and
bar
coded
leveling
staffs.
The
calibration
for
the
NA3003
is
valid
from
May
20,
1998,
through
May
20,
2000.
The
data
were
recorded
electronically
on
the
Leica
GRMI
0
REC­
Module,
which
is
built
into
the
instrument.
In
addition
to
the
electronic
record,
a
written
field
log
was
maintained
to
record
information
that
is
not
stored
in
the
electronic
record.

3.
Office
Processing
Each
day
the
data
were
downloaded
from
the
GRMIO
REC­
Module
to
the
survey
group
computer.
The
original
raw
data
files
were
maintained
intact,
and
further
processing
was
performed
on
a
copy
of
the
original
raw
data
file.

Listing
of
the
data,
and
the
adjustment
of
the
loops,
was
completed
with
the
DIGILEV
software
(version
10.94d)
from
Leica
Canada.
The
results,
as
summarized
below,
were
extracted
from
the
output
of
the
DiGlLEV
software.

4.
Methodology
The
weather
conditions
during
the
observations
of
the
1998
survey
were
generally
mild
with
moderate
temperatures
and
light
to
moderate
breezes.

The
elevations
for
the
1998
survey
are
computed
from
the
adjusted
obsa,
dafions
based
on
the
elevation
of
the
subsidence
monument,
S­
37
(3,423.874
feet).
S­
37
is
the
monument
that
is
furthest
from
the
influence
of
the
underground
1
DOWIPP
99­
2
excavations,
and
has
been
held
fixed
for
all
of
the
subsidence
leveling
surveys
since
1993.

The
monument,
Pf­
30,
has
been
physically
disturbed
and
was
removed
from
the
1998
survey.

For
visual
reference,
Figure
1
shows
a
graphic
display
of
the
individual
loops,
the
total
survey,
and
the
relationship
to
the
underground
excavations.

2
Q­
419*..
­
­
..

s­
37
e­.,
'
0
.
_,
........
Loop
2
.
.
s51
._
..
_­
..........
­
­,
.....
­
..
­.
.
:'s38
­­

Legend
=
Survey
Pmnt
0
=Shaft
x­
418
e
w­
m
.
s43;

!O
...
.__..
.
.............
..*...
>..

S%

'PTJO
3
,
0
PT­
31
.y
PT­
21
­S­
27
Figure
1.
Individual
Loops,
Total
Survey
and
Underground
Excavations
3
5.
General
Summary
of
Resuits
(260)
September
21,1998
(264)
September
22,
1998
Table
1
below
describes
the
ten
leveling
loops
that
were
measured
to
obtain
the
elevations
of
the
subsidence
monuments.
The
table
contains
the
start
date
of
the
observations,
a
loop
number,
and
the
points
that
are
contained
within
the
loop.

Table
1.
Description
of
1998
Leveling
Loops
W418,
V­
418,
S­
41,
U­
418,
Y­
418,
A­
419,
C­
419
4
U­
418,
S­
18,
S­
17,5­
43,5­
20,
S­
42,
5­
40,
S­
21,
S­
39,
S­
19,
S­
41,
U­
418
U­
418,
T­
418,
K­
349,
S­
46,
S­
418.
K­
349,
T­
418.
5
(265)
I
U­
418
(266)
October
16,
1998
(289)
September
24,
1998
(267)
October
15,
1998
T­
418,
S­
16,
S­
44,
T­
418
K­
349,
5­
24,
S­
23,
S­
22,
PT­
31,
PT­
30,
S­
09,
S­
45,
S­
10,
PT­
32,
K­
349
K­
349,
S­
52,
S­
24,
S­
25,
S­
26,
S­
49,
S­
48,
S­
13,
PT­
33,
$12,
K­
349
S­
418,
S­
34,
S­
33,
S­
32,
S­
27,
PT­
21,
S­
22,
S­
28.
7
8
9
Table
2
summarizes
the
results
of
the
leveling
loops
in
terms
of
vertical
closure
and
accuracy.
The
requirement
for
Second
Order
Class
11
loop
closure
accuracy
was
achieved
in
all
cases.
(288)
September
29,1998
(272)

Table
2.
Summa9
of
Distance
and
Accuracy
for
1998
Leveling
Loops
S­
29,
S­
46,
S­
418
5­
418,
S­
34,
S­
35,
S­
36,
S­
50,
5­
31,
S­
47,
S­
30,
5418
10
Loop
Cumulative
Vertical
Accuracy
Allowable
Distance
(ft)
Closure
(ft.)
Accuracy
4
5.1
Accuracy
Surnrnav
by
Loop
Table
3
shows
a
detailed
summary
of
the
observations
in
the
leveling
loops
for
the
1998
survey.
The
information
in
the
table
for
each
loop
includes:

Between
each
benchmark
in
the
loop:

The
distance
leveled
between
benchmarks
along
the
loop.

0
The
number
of
instrument
setups
between
each
of
the
benchmarks.

The
difference
in
elevation
from
each
benchmark
to
the
next.

For
each
loop
as
a
whole:

The
accuracy
of
leveling.

The
accuracy
of
the
leveling
is
given
in
terms
of
feet
times
the
square
root
of
the
length
of
the
loop
in
miles.
The
actual
accuracy
of
leveling
is
computed
in
the
DlGlLEV
software,
and
is
based
on
the
actual
vertical
closure
of
the
loop.
The
maximum
allowable
accuracy
is
based
on
the
allowable
accuracy
of
a
loop
as
stated
in
the
FGCS
interim
specification
for
digital
leveling.
The
FGCS
specification
for
Second
Order
Class
II
loop
closure
permits
a
maximum
of
8mmdKm
(8mm
times
the
square
root
of
the
length
of
the
loop
in
Km).
This
converts
to
0.033ft.
dmile
(0.033
feet
times
the
square
root
of
the
length
Gf
t
h
e
loop
in
miles)
when
stated
in
feet.
All
values
indicated
in
this
summary
are
expressed
in
feet.

Inspection
of
the
following
tables
shows
that
in
every
case
the
actual
accuracy
is
well
below
the
maximum
allowable
accuracy
for
each
loop,
The
column
in
each
table
that
is
labeled
"Difference"
is
the
vertical
difference
from
one
point
to
the
next.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
vertical
difference
figures
have
been
rounded,
and
a
slight
difference
may
exist
in
the
vertical
closure
figure
from
the
algebraic
sum
of
the
column.
The
cumulative,
or
total,
distance
of
each
loop.

The
vertical
closure
of
the
loop.

Allowable
accuracy
for
each
loop.

5
DOEMIPP
99­
2
Table
3.
Detailed
loop
Measurements
kcuracv
of
Leveling:
0.002
I
s­
418
I
K­
349
I
2,087
I
14
I
2.457
12.745
9.364
4.003
0.002
1,187
D­
419
S­
51
2.744
S­
51
S­
38
3.61
1
24
­0.632
A.
.­
A
­~
5­
38
1
11334
I
10
:umulative
Distance:
9,533
DHfeF3,
nCi
­7.297
­0.81
5
­8.273
7.249
3.687
1.81C
3.730
4.359
6.81
5
­1
1.170
­0.088
Setups
6
2
6
8
10
8
6
4
6
10
14
lertical
Closure:
iccuracy
of
beveling:
illowable
Accumcv:
0
.m
S­
ol
s­
03
180
595
0.044
s­
53
1.238
0.000
I
s
4
3
1
E
1
s­
45
m­
IO
1,195
PT­
1
0
S­
14
1.193
S­
14
S­
15
1,000
S­
15
T­
418
444
Loop
3
Distance
1,418
955
532
41
5
1,225
596
579
61
1
404
244
2,395
2,164
2,371
13,910
A­
41
9
setups
10
6
4
4
8
4
4
4
4
2
20
16
16
4.895
1
FX
I
1
595
0.561
1,176
5.800
T­
418
1,749
4.010
Cumulative
Distance:
10,164
­9.1
15
Vertical
Closure:
6.694
Accuracy
of
Leveling:
A419
Y­
347
Y­
347
2­
41
8
2­
418
Y­
418
Y­
418
X­
418
X­
418
,W­
418
V­
418
s­
41
U­
418
Y­
418
Y­
418
A41
9
w­
418
w
i
a
s­
41
u­
41
a
­0.130E
0.00:
0.04E
table
Accuracy:
_.
.

1
1y
Loop
7
Distance
915
To
S­
24
S­
23
s­
22
PT­
31
PT­
30
S­
09
s­
45
s­
10
PT­
32
K­
349
Distanec:
­2.09f
­8.142
­2.677
7.71
E
1.231
­0.14s
­0.
m
0.00:
­17.083
S­
24
0.002
PT­
31
1,026
1,065
1,430
1,022
169
1.011
1.010
685
988
9,321
Cumulative
Distance:
Vertical
Closure:
Accuracy
of
Leveling:

Distance
setups
4
8
6
6
6
4
10
14
6
2
a
From
W
1
8
51
8
S
I
7
s
4
3
s
2
0
5­
42
SA0
s­
2
1
5
3
9
s­
19
To
s­
fa
S
I
7
S­
43
5
2
0
s42
S­
40
s­
2
1
s­
39
s­
19
S­
41
1,112
706
696
598
1,332
1,132
1,836
757
245
9,739
ala
10.533
6.1
02
6.191
7.505
­3.810
­1
1.983
4.752
­4.622
5­
41
U418
Cumulative
Distance:
Vertical
Closure:
­0.007
0.005
I
Accuracy
of
Leveling:

Table
3
continued
on
next
page..
(.

6
DOENYIPP
99­
2293
Table
3.
Detailed
Loop
Measurements
(continued)

S­
24
S­
25
S­
26
s­
49
S­
48
S­
13
PT­
33
s­
12
K­
349
Iistance:
Vertical
Closure:

To
S­
34
s­
33
5­
32
S­
27
PT­
21
s­
22
S28
S­
29
S­
46
S­
418
1,079
1,032
1,024
94
1
1,013
1,007
527
547
904
8,326
Setups
1
Difference
2
i
3.376
­5.469
5.823
11.981
12.716
0.678
­10.924
­2.473
Accuracy
of
Leveling:
0.004
Allowable
Accuracy:
0.041
LOOP
3
From
Distance
S­
418
1,086
S­
34
s­
33
S­
32
5­
27
PT­
21
s
2
2
S­
28
S­
29
­
­_._

­
­

­­.­­

S­
46
1,025
1,066
1,303
83
1,438
1,592
983
699
1,016
10.291
­0.005
Cumulative
distance:
K
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
:
Setups
8
8
8
10
1
10
11
7
5
7
Difference
­9.648
­1
3.039
­5.575
13.796
­3.361
3.864
5.587
6.722
­0.184
1.840
­0.002
0.002
=pc
­
Loop
10
3istance
I
Setup
1
Difference
F­
1.132
I
8
I
­9.647
s­
47
S­
30
5­
30
S­
418
hmulative
Distance:
dertical
Closure:
4ccuracy
of
Leveling:
4llowable
Accuracy:
1,059
8.450
1,015
9.024
1,517
16.301
966
~

';
1
­1
3.589
745
­3.069
608
4
­5.179
795
­2.282
7,837
­0.008
0.007
0.@
40
7
I
6.
Adjusted
Level
Loops
Table
4
is
a
summary
of
the
adjusted
elevations
for
the
ten
loops
measured
in
1998.
This
has
been
extracted
from
the
output
of
the
DlGlLEV
software.

Table
4.
Adjusted
Elewations
by
L
O
Q
~

,_­,­
­a
I
;>­
3:
1
3404.172
3416.916
U­
418
3426.279
1
(2­
419
I
3437.648
1
3395.887
3387.744
1
S­
35
I
3400.516
8
DOEIWIPP
39­
2293
7.
Adjusted
Elevations
(1
998)

Table
5
shows
the
adjusted
elevations
for
the
subsidence
monuments
and
the
NGS
points
contained
within
the
1998
survey.
These
elevations
are
normalized
to
the
monument,
S­
37.
All
elevations
are
shown
in
feet,
and
are
within
the
WiPP
local
system.

Table
5.
1998
Adjusted
Elevations
9
I
8.
Comparison
of
Elevations
Table
6
compares
the
elevations
from
all
of
the
subsidence
leveling
surveys
from
I986
through
1998.

Table
6.
Comparison
of
Etevations
19864998
Note:
(1)
The
subsidence
monument,
S­
02
was
relocated
in
1989.
(2)
The
subsidence
monument,
S­
02,
no
longer
exists
after
the
1992
survey.
(3)
The
subsidence
monument,
S­
I
1,
no
longer
exists
after
the
1992
survey.

Table
6
continued
on
next
page
...

10
DOENVlPP
99­
2293
Table
6.
Comparison
of
Elevations
1986­
1998
(continued)

Note:
(4)
The
subsidence
monument,
5­
54,
no
longer
exists
after
the
1992
suwey.
(5)
The
monument,
PT­
30,
has
been
physically
disturbed
and
was
removed
from
the
1998
survey.

Table
6
continued
on
next
page
...

11
I
?

12
Attachment
D.
6
Other
Reviewed
Table
7­
7.
Preclosure
and
Postclosure
Monitored
Parameters
Preclosure
X
/
x
l
x
i
Monitored
Parameter
Culebra
groundwater
composition
Culebra
change
in
groundwater
flow
I
­.
­
___
­
~

4
L
Probability
of
encountering
a
Castile
brine
reservoir
v"

/
Qilling
rate
4
d
bbsidence
measurements
x
i
i
A
X
F
a
t
e
activity
...
.
..
.
.
i
Creep
closure
and
stresses
Li
Extent
of
deformation
4
x
Initiation
of
brittle
deformation
4
x
i
t
i
t
j
X
Displacement
of
deformation
features
!I/
X
i
EEMENTATION
OF'
WIPP
LONG­
TERM
MONITORING
PROGRAMS
J
~~~~~~~
n~~
Monitoring
­
The
program
that
monitors
this
data
is
implemented
by
WP
09­
ES.
01,
Revision
0,
WPP
Underground
&
Suflace
Su­
rveying
Program,
that
was
effective
January
23,
1998.
Subsidence
measurements
are
taken
at
monitoring
stations
installed
on
the
surfslce
above
the
completed
and
planned
WlPP
underground
excavations.
Since
1992
regular
subsidence
measurements
hwe
been
taken
and
they
will
continue
to
be
conducted
annually.
4
­
The
program
that
monitors
this
data
is
implemented
by
WP
05­
WAOZ,
Revision
0,
WPP
Wmte
r
~~~~t
i
o
~
System
Program,
that
was
effective
on
April
15,
1997.
Since
DOE
has
not
begun
disposal
of
waste
yet,
no
actud
data
representing
waste
disposed
of
at
WIPP
has
been
entered
into
the
computerized
waste
information
system.
However,
=data
have
been
put
into
the
system
and
reports
have
been
run
to
vernfy
the
system
is
functional.
Information
will
be
entered
into
the
data
system
by
the
generator
sites
as
they
ship
waste
to
W
P
for
disposal.

ile
Brine
Reservoir
­
The
program
that
monitors
this
data
is
implemented
by
WP
02­
PC.
02,
Revision
0,
Delwm&
'
Basin
Drilrilzg
Suweillmce
Plan,
that
was
effective
on
March
27,
1998.
Information
is
gathered
as
records
are
filed
with
the
appropriate
agency
and
data
is
gathered
from
these
records
and
put
into
a
database.
The
database
includes
records
of
drilling
activity
(including
borehole
depth,
diameter,
and
type),
well
conversion
activities,
occurrences
of
pressurized
brine
in
the
Castile
formation,
injection
well
operation,
plugging
and
abandonment
(including
descriptions
of
plugging
configurations),
and
identity
of
well
ownership.
Information
gathering
activities
began
in
late
1995.

Culebra
Ground
Water
Composition
and
Culebra
Ground
Water
Flow
­
The
program
that
monitors
this
data
is
implemented
by
WP
02­
1,
Revision
3
,
Groundwater'
that
was
effective
on
March
12,
1996.
Sa
groundwater
composition
and
nd
water
flow.
The
current
su
1996,
however,
an
early
program
dates
back
to
1985.

Creep
Closure
and
Stresses,
Extent
of
Deformation,
Initiation
of
Brittle
Deformation.
and
Disulacement
of
Deformation
Features
­
The
program
that
monitors
this
data
is
implemented
by
WP
07­
01,
Revision
2,
WPP
Geotechnical
Engineering
v'
Program
Plan,
that
was
effective
on
March
16,
1998.
Data
is
collected
by
a
network
of
instruments
including
tape
and
borehole
extensometers,
convergence
meters,
rockboit
load
cells,
pressure
cells,
crack
meters,
strain
gauges,
and
piezometers.
Data
is
logged
either
remotely
by
data
loggers,
or
manually.
The
measurement
program
began
in
1983
and
is
conducted
at
least
quarterly.
A
comprehensive
report
containing
the
results
of
the
data
analysis
is
published
annually.
Attachment
D.
4
Drilling
Related
Documents
Reviewed
I
Working
Copy
Effective
Date:
3/
27/
97'

WP
02­
PC.
02
Revision
0
Cognizant
Section:
Long­
Term
Reauiatory
Compliance
Approved
By:
Sianature
on
File
­
R.
J.
Leonard
Cognizant
Department:
Environment.
Safety.
and
Wealth
Approved
By:
sin
Driliing
Surveillance
Plan
WP
02­
PC.
02.
Rev
.
0
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS
.........................................................
ii
1.0
INTRODUCTION
.................................................
9
2.0
PURPOSE
......................................................
2
3.0
IMPLEMENTATION
...............................................
3
4.0
ACTIVITIES
.....................................................
3
4.1
Texas
Portion
of
t
h
e
Delaware
Basin
..............................
3
4.2
New
Mexico
Portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin
..........................
3
4.3
Nine­
Township
Area
Information
..................................
4
4.4
General
Database
Maintenance
..................................
5
5.0
REPORTS
.......
....................
.........................
5
6.0
QUALITYASSURANCE
............................................
5
REFERENCES
.......................................................
5
FlGBiRE
1
SURVEILLANCE
AREAS
WITHIN
THE
DELAWARE
8ASIN
.........
7
I
'Warking
Copy
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Pian
WP
02­
PC.
02,
Rev.
0
BLM
CAO
CCA
CFR
DOE
EPA
OCD
QAPD
WiPP
Bureau
of
Land
Management
Carlsbad
Area
Office
Compliance
Certification
Application
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
Environmental
Protection
Agency
State
of
New
Mexico
Oil
Conservation
Division
Quality
Assurance
Program
Description
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
ii
Working
Copy
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Pian
WP
02­
PC.
02,
Rev.
0
1
.O
INTRODUCTION
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
environmental
standards
for
the
management
and
disposal
of
transuranic
radioactive
waste
are
codified
in
Title
40,
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(CFR),
Part
191
(EPA
1993).
Subparts
€3
and
C
of
the
standard
address
the
disposal
of
radioactive
waste.
The
standard
requires
that
the
Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
demonstrate
through
the
use
of
a
probabilistic
risk
assessment
that
the
disposal
system
will
function
to
contain
radioactivity
below
specified
release
limits
considering
the
effects
of
reasonably
expected
human­
initiated
and
natural
processes
and
events.
This
includes
the
consideration
of
inadvertent
drilling
into
the
repository
at
some
future
time.

The
EPA
provided
criteria
in
40
CFR
§
194.33
that
addressed
the
consideration
of
future
deep
and
shallow
drilling
in
performance
assessments.
These
criteria
lead
to
the
formulation
of
conceptual
models
that
incorporate
the
effects
of
these
activities.
These
conceptual
models
use
parameter
values
drawn
from
the
databases
in
Appendix
DEL
of
the
Compliance
Certification
Application
(CCA).

In
accordance
with
these
criteria,
the
DQE
used
the
historical
rate
of
drilling
for
resources
in
the
Delaware
Basin
to
calculate
a
future
drilling
rate.
In
particular,
in
calculating
the
frequency
of
future
deep
drilling,
40
CFR
§
194.33(
b)(
3)(
I)(
EPA
1996)
provided
the
following
guidance
to
the
DOE:

Identify
deep
drilling
that
has
occurred
for
each
resource
in
the
Delaware
Basin
over
the
past
100
years
prior
to
the
time
at
which
a
compliance
application
is
prepared.

The
DOE
used
the
historical
record
of
deep
drilling
for
resources
below
2,150
feet
(656
meters)
that
has
occurred
over
the
past
700
years
in
the
Delaware
Basin.
In
the
past
100
years,
deep
drilling
for
oil,
gas,
potash,
and
sulfur
exploration
has
occurred.
All
of
these
drilling
events
were
used
in
calculating
the
rate
of
deep
drilling
within
the
controlled
area
(the
16­
section
Land
Withdrawal
Boundary)
and
throughout
the
basin
in
the
future,
as
discussed
in
Appendix
DEL
of
the
CCA.
Historical
drilling
for
purposes
other
than
resource
exploration
and
recovery
(such
as
WlPP
site
investigatio?)
were
excluded
from
the
calculation
in
accordance
with
guidance
provided
in
40
CFR
3
194.33.

In
calculating
the
frequency
of
future
shallow
drilling,
40
CFR
§
194.33(
b)(
4f(
I)
states
that
the
DOE
should:

Identify
shallow
drilling
that
has
occurred
for
each
resource
in
the
Delaware
Basin
over
the
past
100
years
prior
to
the
time
at
which
a
compliance
application
is
prepared.

1
I
Working
Copy
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Suweillance
Plan
WP
02­
PC.
02,
Rev.
0
An
additional
criterion
with
respect
to
the
calculation
of
Future
shallow
drilling
rates
is
provided
in
40
CFR
194.33(
b)(
4)(
iii):

In
considering
the
historical
rate
of
all
shallow
drilling,
the
Department
may,
if
justified,
consider
only
the
historical
rate
of
shallow
drilling
for
resources
of
similar
type
and
quality
to
those
in
the
controlled
area.

The
only
resources
present
at
shallow
depths
(less
than
2,150
feet
1655
meters)
below
the
surface)
within
the
controlled
area
are
water
and
potash.
Thus,
consistent
with
40
CFR
§
194.33(
b)(
4),
the
DOE
used
the
historical
record
of
shallow
drilling
associated
with
water
and
potash
extraction
in
the
Delaware
Basin
in
calculating
the
rate
of
shallow
drilling
within
the
controlled
area.

The
EPA
provides
further
criteria
concerning
the
analysis
of
the
consequence
of
future
drilling
events
in
performance
assessments
in
40
CFR
5
194.33(
c)(
EPA
1996).
Consistent
with
these
criteria,
the
following
parameters
regarding
drilfing
were
also
included
in
the
performance
assessment
as
documented
in
Appendix
DEL
of
the
CCA:

Types
of
drilling
fluids
Amounts
of
drilling
fluids
Borehole
depths
Borehole
diameters
E3orehole
plugs
Fraction
of
such
boreholes
that
are
sealed
by
humans
Natural
processes
that
will
degrade
plugs
Instances
of
encountering
pressurized
brine
in
the
Castile
Formation
The
DOE
will
continue
to
provide
surveillance
of
the
drilling
activity
in
the
Delaware
Basin
in
accordance
with
the
criteria
established
in
40
CFR
5
194
during
the
operational
phase
and
will
continue
until
the
DOE
and
EPA
agree
that
no
further
benefit
can
be
gained
from
continued
surveillance.
The
results
of
this
surveillance
activity
will
be
used
in
performance
assessment
calculations
performed
in
support
of
recertification.

2.0
PURPOS
The
purpose
of
the
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Plan
is
to
provide
for
active
surveillance
of
drilling
activities
within
the
Delaware
Basin
(see
Figure
I),
with
specific
emphasis
on
the
nine­
township
area
that
includes
the
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
(WIPP)
site
(Figure
I).
The
surveillance
of
drilling
activities
will
build
on
the
data
presented
in
Appendix
DEL
and
comply
with
the
activities
presented
in
Appendix
DMP
of
the
CCA,
which
were
used
to
develop
modeling
assumptions
for
performance
assessment.
The
collection
of
additional
information
on
drilling
patterns
and
practices
in
the
Delaware
Basin
will
be
used
to
define
whether
the
drilling
scenarios
in
the
application
continue
to
b
e
valid
ai
,ach
five­
year
recertification
time
for
the
WIPP.

2
working
copy
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Plan
WP
02­
PC.
02,
Rev.
0
Surveillance
of
drilling
activities
within
the
Delaware
Basin
will
be
implemented
no
later
than
the
beginning
of
the
operational
phase.
This
activity
will
continue
until
100
years
after
closure
or
until
the
DOE
can
demons'.
.de
to
the
EPA
that
there
are
no
significant
concerns
to
be
addressed
by
further
surveillance,
as
discussed
in
Chapter
7,
Section
7.1.4,
Effectiveness
of
the
Active
Institutional
Controls
Program,
of
the
CCA,
DOE/
CAO­
1996­
2184,
October
1996.
Beginning
no
later
than
the
initiation
of
the
operational
phase
and
continuing
through
post­
closure,
driliing
activities
within
the
Delaware
Basin
will
be
tracked
using
commercially
available
databases.
Drilling
activities
related
to
hydrocarbon
resources,
potash
boreholes,
and
water
welts
that
occur
within
the
nine­
township
area,
will
be
more
rigorously
monitored
using
the
commercial
databases
and
the
drilling
records
maintained
by
both
state
and
federal
organ
iza
t
io
n
s
.

4.
Q
ACTIVITIES
4.1
Texas
Portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin
Data
on
drilling
activities
as
related
to
hydrocarbon
resources,
sulfur
boreholes,
and
water
wells
that
occur
within
the
Texas
portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin
will
be
speeificalIy
collected
and
recorded
by
Long­
Term
Regulatory
Compliance
on
a
monthly
basis.
The
data
will
be
collected
from
commercial
databases
and
will
be
verified
from
state
and
federal
records
as
necessary.
This
data
(to
the
extent
it
is
not
proprietary)
will
be
added
to
the
existing
visual
database
established
for
the
CCA.
The
specific
activities
in
the
Texas
area
(see
Figure
1)
that
will
be
tracked
on
a
monthly
basis
are
as
follows:

New
drilling
activities
(deep
and
shallow)
Abandonment
activities
(when
plugged)
Type
of
well
(oil,
gas,
sulfur,
water,
etc.)

4.2
New
Mexico
Portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin
Data
on
drilling
activities
related
to
hydrocarbon
resources,
sulfur
boreholes,
and
water
wells
that
occur
within
the
New
Mexico
portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin
will
be
specifically
collected
and
recorded
by
Long­
Term
Regulatory
Compliance
on
a
monthly
basis.
The
data
will
be
collected
from
commercial
databases
and
will
be
verified
from
state
and
federal
records.
This
data
(to
the
extent
it
is
not
proprietary)
will
be
added
to
the
existing
visual
database
and
a
database
of
New
Mexico
wells
established
for
the
CCA.

3
Woiking
Copy
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Plan
WP
02­
PC.
02,
Rev.
0
The
specific
activities
in
the
New
Mexico
area
(see
Figure
1)
that
will
be
tracked
on
a
monthly
basis
are
as
follows:

New
drilling
activities
(deep
and
shallow)
Abandonment
activities
(when
and
how
plugged)
Type
of
weli
(oil,
gas,
sulfur,
water,
etc.)
Occurrences
of
pressurized
brine
within
the
Castile
Formation
Injection
well
operation
(disposal
and
secondary
recovery)
Solution
well
mining
(salt
and
potash)
*
*

0
0
*

4.3
Nine­
Township"
Area
Information
Data
on
drilling
activities
related
to
hydrocarbon
resources,
potash
boreholes,
and
water
wells
that
occur
within
the
Delaware
Basin
portion
of
the
nine­
township
area
(see
Figure)
will
be
specifically
collected
and
recorded
by
bong­
Term
Regulatory
Compliance
on
a
monthly
basis.
The
data
will
be
collected
from
commercial
databases
and
from
state
and
federal
records.
This
data
(to
the
extent
it
is
not
proprietary)
will
be
added
to
the
existing
visual
and
New
Mexico
wells
databases
established
for
the
CCA.
The
specific
activities
in
the
nine­
township
area
that
will
be
tracked
on
a
monthly
basis
are
as
follows:

New
drilling
activities
(of
any
kind,
both
deep
and
shallow)

e
Abandonment
activities
(when
and
how
plugged)

*
Type
of
well
(oil,
gas,
sulfur,
water,
ete.)

*
Occurrences
of
pressurized
brine
within
the
Castile
Formation
Injection
well
operation
(disposal
and
secondary
recovery)

Solution
well
mining
(salt
and
potash)

Maintenance
of
databases
for
incidences
of
non­
compliance
with
Bureau
of
Land
Management
(BLM)
and
State
of
New
Mexico
Oil
Conservation
Division
(OC)
rules
as
information
is
recw
ied
in
the
files
maintained
by
the
BLMIOCD
e
Identification
of
ownership
(through
BLMIOCD
records
monitoring)
of
all
state
and
federal
minerals
and
hydrocarbon
leases
within
the
area
4
Working
Copy
Delaware
Basin
Drilling
Surveillance
Plan
WP
02­
PC.
02,
Rev.
0
4.4
General
Database
Maintenance
Long­
Term
Regulatory
Compliance
will
maintain
and
update,
on
a
monthly
basis,
the
databases
of
the
Delaware
Basin
established
for
the
CCA,
in
an
electronic
format.
The
visual
database
(an
electronic
map
of
the
defined
area)
will
reflect
the
current
status
of
ail
known
wells
in
the
Delaware
Basin.
Maps
of
the
Delaware
Basin
wiil
be
published
as
needed
from
this
visual
database.
The
New
Mexico
well
database
will
be
in
a
database
format
that
will
contain
the
same
information
as
the
visual
database
and
will
include
much
more
detailed
information
on
the
wells
in
the
New
Mexico
portion
of
the
Delaware
Basin.

5.0
REPORTS
Data
will
be
reviewed
annually
to
ensure
there
are
no
substantial
and
detrimental
deviations
from
the
assumptions
used
in
the
perfdrrnance
assessment
documented
in
the
CCA.
An
annual
report
will
then
be
prepared
and
included
with
other
environmental
data
and
will
be
provided
to
the
DOE
and
made
available
to
the
EPA.
Every
five
years,
information
will
be
summarized
for
input
into
the
recertification
process
as
defined
in
40
CFR
5
194.15
(EPA
1996).

6.0
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
Activities
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
appropriate
sections
of
WP
13­
1,
WID
QAPD.
Specifically,
an
outside
source
(the
Waste
Isolation
Division
Quaiity
and
Regulatory
Assurance
Department)
will
randomly
select
a
minimum
of
20
wells
from
a
map
of
the
Delaware
Basin.
They
will
verify
that
the
information
contained
in
the
two
databases;
the
visual
and
New
Mexico
wek,
matches
the
information
prorided
from
the
commercial
databases
and
records
$rom
the
state
and
federal
agencies.
When
possible
and
practical,
field
verification
will
be
conducted
only
within
the
nine­
township
area
and
only
to
the
extent
to
verify
the
actual
condition
of
the
well.
Field
verification
recorded
in
permanent
notebooks
will
be
done
in
accordance
with
WP
13­
1,
WID
QAPD.

REFERENCES
EPA,
1993.
40
CFR
§
Part
191:
Environmental
Standards
for
the
Management
and
Disposal
of
Spent
Nuclear
Fuel,
High­
Level
and
transuranic
Radioactive
Wastes;
Final
Rule.
Federal
Register,
Vol.
58,
No.
242,
p.
66398.
December
20,
1993.
Office
of
Radiation
and
Air,
Washington,
D.
C.

€PA,
1996.
40
CFR
Pa&
194:
CritePia
for
the
Certifi
Waste
Isolation
Pilot
Plant's
Compliance
with
the
40
CFR
Part
191
Disposal
Regulations;
Final
Rule.
Federal
Register,
Vol.
61
,
pp.
5224­
5245,
February
9,
1996.
Office
of
Radiation
and
Indoor
Air,
Washington,
D.
C.
&
M
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
the
5