How to select nonlinear crystals and model their .../67531/metadc... · references over 500 papers...

.%- .~. +.

header for SPIEuse

SAND99-1713C

How to select nonlinear crystals and modelSNLO software

A. V. Smith

their performance using

Sandia National Laboratories, MS 1423, Albuquerque, NM 87185

ABSTRACT

SNLO is public domain software developed at Sandia Nat. Labs. It is intended to assist in the selection of the best nonlinearcrystal for a particular application, and in predicting its performance. This paper briefly describes its functions and how touse them.

1. INTRODUCTION

The advent of powerfid desktop computers has made it possible to automate calculations of the linear and nonlinearproperties of crystals, and to perform detailed simulations of nonlinear mixing processes in crystals. The purpose of SNLO isto make these calculations available to the public in a free, user-friendly, windows-based, package, with the hope that thiswill advance the state of the art in applications such as optical parametric oscillatorshmplifiers (OPO/OPA), opticalparametric generation (OPG), flequency doublers, etc. There are two types of functions included in SNLO. The fiist set helpin computing the crystal properties such as phase-matching angles, effective nonlinear coefficients, group velocity, andbirefringence. The second set help model the performance of nonlinear crystals in various applications. The capabilities ofeach are presented below in the form of answers to the “How do I:” question.

2. CRYSTAL PROPERTY CALCULATIONS

HOW do I:

1.1 Select an angle-tuned crystal

The fhnction QMIX is the best starting place. When you select a crystal the viewing area will display its properties includingtransmission range (as a plot if the information is available), references for Sellmeier data, nonlinear coefficients, damagethresholds, etc. Enter the wavelengths for your mixing process and push ‘Run’ to get fhrther information specific to allpossible phase matched processes. Note that for biaxial crystal only the principal planes are allowed in QMIX. If you arecurious about a biaxial crystal’s properties outside the principal planes, you can explore them using BMIX. Note that moreinformation on crystal properties is available in the papers listed in the bibliography ‘Crystals.pdf’ included with SNLO. Itreferences over 500 papers relating to nonlinear optical crystals.

1.2 Select a quasiphase-matched crystal

The fi,mction ~ helps you fmd the right quasiphase matched poling period for any of the popular quasiphase matchablecrystals. It also shows the temperature and pump wavelength tuning properties of the crystal. You can chose thepolarizations for you processes as well, although the zzz polarization is usually the one of practical interest.

1.3 ~ Select an angle-tuued OPO crystal

The function Opoangles displays a plot of the signal/idler wavelength versus crystal angle for a given pump wavelength. Italso computed the nonlinear coefficient and the parametric gain versus angle. Comparing gain across the wavelength rangeof interest and between different crystals and phase matching types gives a good indication of relative OPO performance.Note that this fimction computes noncollinear phase matching. Click on the ‘pump tilt’ edit box for a diagram of thenoncollinear angles. The signal is assumed to remain aligned to the cavity of an OPO, the pump is tilted by a freed anglerelative to the signal while the crystal and idler tilt by variable amounts to achieve phase match.

1.4 Compute crystal properties

The function Ref. Ind. can be used to compute refractive indices, group velocities, group velocity dispersions, andbirefringent walk off for a given propagation angle, temperature, and wavelength. This is useful if you want to make yourown calculations of phase matching, group velocity matching, etc.

3. NONLINEAR MIXING MODELS

HOW do I:

2.1 Model single-pass mixing

The fimctions with ‘mix’ in their title are for single pass mixing, as opposed to mixing in an optical cavity. The fimctionswith the ‘PW prefm model plane-wave mixing, those with the ‘2D’ prefix include Gaussian spatial profiles with diffractionand birefi-ingent walk off. The functions with suffii ‘LP’ ignore group velocity effects and can be used for ns and longerpulses or for cw beams. Functions with suff~ ‘SP’ incorporate group velocity effects and are useful for ps and fs pulses.Suffix ‘BB’ indicates that the pulses are long but broad band so there is temporal structure on a time scale short enough torequire inclusion of group velocity effects. The function Focus is included to help decide the wavefkont curvature at the

crystal entrance face. Generally for mixing low power beams you want to focus into the crystal with a confocal lengthcomparable to the crystal length. The models of SNLO are based on split-step propagation methods. They are state-of-the-art in technique, and are all-numerical to cover the widest possible range of applications. I have carefully validated themagainst analytical expressions and against each other.

2.2 Model mixing in a cavity (OPO, frequency doubling, etc.)

The functions with ‘OPO’ in their title are for mixing in a cavity. Note that they will model not only OPO’S but also anymixing process in a cavity such as frequency doubling in a build-up cavity. The fitnctions with the ‘PW prefix model plane-wave mixing with planar cavity mirrors, that with the ‘2D’ prefix includes Gaussian spatial profiles with diffraction andbirefiingent walk off and can accommodate curved cavity mirrors. The t%nctions with suffix ‘LP’ ignore group velocityeffects and can be used for ns and longer pulses or for cw beams. The function with suffix ‘SPY incorporates group velocityeffects and is intended to model synchronously-pumped OPO’S pumped by ps or fs pulses. The suffix ‘BB’ indicates that thepulses are of long duration but have a broad bandwidth so there is temporal structure on a time scale short enough to requireinclusion of group velocity effects. Generally for mixing of low power beams you want to use a stable cavity with focusingmirrrors. The cavity can be designed using the Cavity fimction which will also help you fmd the wavefront curvature of theinput beams at the input mirror, and the cavity round-trip phase which must be known to achieve exact resonance in thecavity. The models of SNLO are based on split-step propagation methods. They are state-of-the-art in technique, and are all-numerical to cover the widest possible range of applications. I have carefully validated them against analytical expressionsand against each other.

2.3 Model OPG (optical parametric generation)

The function PW-mix-BB can be used to model OPG in the plane-wave approximation. You must specifj the correct signaland idler energies, bandwidths, and mode spacings to simulate start-up quantum noise. The mode spacing should be theinverse of the signal/idler pulse length. For example, if you have a 1 ps pump pulse, you could use 5 ps signal and idlerpulses (to allow for temporal walk of~ and a signal/idler mode spacing of 100 GHz. The bandwidth should be set to severaltimes the OPO acceptance bandwidth, and the pulse energy of the signal and idler should be set so there is one photon per

mode, ie energy = hvxbandwidth+-(mode spacing). Because the gain is very high for OPG, the number of z integration stepsmust be quite large. I suggest you start with 100 steps and double it until the results converge. Each run will use differentstart up noise, so convergence does not mean identical results here. A good test is to look at both the irradiance and spectraplots and make sure they are both similar to the previous run with fewer integration steps.

4. SNLO DOWNLOAD Sandla is a multiprogram laboratory_operated by Simdh Corporation, a

SNLO is a fkee download at web site http: //www.sandia.gov/imrl/XWEBl 128/xxtal.httn Lockheed Martin C(’’’?~mY.‘or ‘heUnited States Depann~ent of Energyunder contrac! DE-AC04-94AL85000.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegiblein electronic image products. Images areproduced from the best available originaldocument.

SAND98-O072 RevisionUnlimited Release

Printed March 2000Supersedes SAND98-0072

dated April 1998

Milestones for Disposal of Radioactive Wasteat the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

in the United States

Rob P. RechardPerformance Assessment Department (6849)

Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, NM 87185-0779

Abstract

Six years (1983 to 1989) were spent constructing the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)in southern New Mexico for disposal of transuranic radioactive waste. However, not until1999, 25 years after its identification as a potential deep geologic repository, did theWIPP receive its first shipment of waste. This report presents a concise history in tabularform of events leading up to its selection, including the development of regulatorycriteria, major political conflicts, negotiated agreements, and technical milestones of theWIPP. In general, technical programs and engineering analysis of the WIPP before themid 1980s were undertaken primarily (1) to develop general understanding of selectednatural phenomena, (2) to satisfy needs for environmental impact statements, and (3) tosatisfy negotiated agreements -between the U.S. Department of Energy and the State ofNew Mexico. In the final segment of the project, federal compliance policy wasdeveloped and technical programs and engineering analysis evolved to assess thecompliance of the WIPP with these specific regulations. During this ten-year period, fourpreliminary performance assessments, one compliance performance assessment, and oneverification performance assessment were performed.

Preface

The milestones table for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Project was originally prepared as a section

in the report, An Introduction to the Mechanics of Performance Assessment Using Examples of

Calculations Done for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Between 1990 and 1992, SAND93-1378, by Rob P.

Rechard. The milestones table, a particularly popular section, has been reproduced separately here and has

been updated to include 1996 through 1999. As before, some text accompanies the milestone tables, but the

emphasis remains on the tables because of their usefulness in providing a comprehensive but concise history

of the WIPP. The usefulness of the milestones table is due in part to Anita Reiser, Darrell Munson, and

Wendell Weart, all of Sandia National Laboratories, who helped with verification of information; C.

Crawford of ASAP, Inc., who verified references; M. Minahan and J. Chapman, of Tech Reps, Inc., who

edited the text; and S. K. Best, of Tech Reps, Inc., who placed the text in tables.

ii

Contents

Acronymsflnitialisms ............................... ....................................................... .................................................v

Milestones for Disposal of Radioactive Waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ................. ..........................1

Early History of Nuclear Waste Disposal Related to the WIPP .............. .................................................l

Early Studies at the WIPP .............. ......................................................... ................................. ................2

Compliance Setting for the WIPP ............................................................ .................................................4

Development of Methodology for Assessing Compliance of the WIPP ...................................................4

Suma~ .................................................................................................. .................................................5

Detailed Tabulation of WIPP Milestones ..................................................... ...................................................7

References ..................................... ............................................................... .................................................2O

.111

Acronyms/Initialisms

A/E – architect/engineering firm

AEA - Atomic Energy Act, either 1946 (Pub. L. 79-585-60 Stat. 755) or 1954 (Pub. L. 83-703-68Stat. 919)

AEC – Atomic Energy Commission, the forerunner ofthe DOE, was formed in 1946 (August 1, 1946,60 Stat. 755).

AG – Attorney General

AL – Albuquerque Operations Office, largest ofseveral operations offices set up by DOE

ALARA – As low as reasonably achievable with costsand benefits taken into account; a basic policy ofradiation protection initially proposed in 1948 andpromulgated by NRC in 1975.

BRWM – Board of Radioactive Waste Management,a permanent board formed in 1968 in the NationalResearch Council, the operating agency of theU.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

BSPP – Bedded Salt Pilot Plant, initial name forWIPP in 1974

C&C – Consultation and Cooperation AgreementBetween the State of New Mexico and the DOE

CAG – Compliance Application Guide, a non-bindingguidance document developed by the EPA tosupplement the WIPP implementing regulation,Title 40 CFR Part 191

CAMCON – Compliance Assessment MethodologyController, computational system for assessingthe performance of a disposal system (usually fornuclear wastes). When first developed in the early1990s, this information management systemprovided for (1) the interfacing of individualcomputer codes of the WIPP PA modeling system,and (2) quality assurance of the computations.

CAO – Cadsbad Area Office, DOE office formanaging WIPP Project, was formed in 1993 toreplace the WIPP Project Integration Office(WPIO) that had been established in 1991, and theWIPP Project Office (wPO), which had beencreated in the 1980s and moved to Carlsbad, NM,in 1984.

CARD – Citizens Against Radioactive Dumping, NewMexico special interest group

CCA – Compliance Certification Application to theEPA to evaluate compliance with Title 40 CFRPart 191 of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;application coordinated by Westinghouse for theDOE with input from Sandia NationalLaboratories

CH-TRU – contact-handled Transuranic waste, packagedTRU waste whose external surface dose rate does notexceed 200 mrem per hour and can thus be directlyhandled by personnel

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

DCCA – Draft Compliance Certification Application,prepared and sent to EPA in 1995

DHLW – Defense high-level waste, that is, high-levelwaste (HLW) that has been generated by the DOE inreprocessing spent nuclear fuel from experimental andmilitary react ors. Because the possibility ofcommercial reprocessing was stopped under the CarterAdministration in 1980 and never initiated thereafter,only about 72 MTHM equivalents from the WestValley Demonstration Project in New York or 0.75% iscommercial HLW in the United States. Hence, thedistinction between defense and commercial HLW isusually unimportant, except when highlighting thesource of HLW or when discussing reprocessing anddisposal plans for HLW in the United States prior to1980.

DOE – U.S. Department of Energy, formed by DOEOrganization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565), whichreplaced the Energy Research and DevelopmentAgency (ERDA). ERDA was formed by the 1974Energy Reorganization Act (Pub. L. 93-438) andreplaced the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), whichwas formed in 1946 (August 1, 1946, 60 Stat. 755).

DOI – U.S. Department of Interior

DOL - U.S. Department of Labor

DOT – U.S. Department of Transportation

EDF – Environmental Defense Fund, U.S. environmentalspecial interest group

EEG – Environmental Evaluation Group, formed in 1978by New Mexico from funds provided by the DOE toconduct independent technical evaluation of the WIPP.The National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year1989, Pub. L. 100-456, Section 1433 assignedadministrative oversight of EEG to the New MexicoInstitute of Mining and Technology.

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement, environmentaldocumentation required by federal law (NEPA) (Pub.L. 91-190) for large, federally funded programs

EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, formed by

Congress on December 2, 1970, in Reorganization PlanNo. 3 of 1970 (5 U.S.C. 903; 40 CFR 1). In this act,Congress transferred to EPA the tasks of monitoringresearch, setting standards, and performing enforcementactivities related to pollution abatement and controlsuch that the environment could be considered as asingle, interrelated system.

v

ERDA - Energy Research and Development Agency,a forerunner of the DOE, was formed in 1974(Pub. L. 93-438).

FEPs – features, events (natural and anthropogenicphenomena of short duration), and processes(natural phenomena of long duration)

GAO – General Accounting Office, U.S. Congress

HLW - High-level (radioactive) waste, “. thehighly radioactive material [tission products andsome actinides,] resulting from the reprocessing ofspent nuclear fuel, including liquid wasteproduced directly in reprocessing and any solidmaterial derived from such liquid waste thatcontains fission products in sufficientconcentrations . .“ (NWPA, 1982, $2[12])F2h.Although not used in this manner in this report,general articles regarding radioactive waste use theterm high-level waste to imply any combination ofspent nuclear fuel and HLW (and sometimestransuranic [TRU] waste) that requires disposal ina deep, geologic repository. 10 CFR 60, whichwas promulgated by the NRC prior to NWPA, alsoincludes spent nuclear fuel in its definition ofhigh-level waste.

HSWA - Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of1984 (Pub. L. 98-616) (see also RCRA)

IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,Austria, established in 1957 by General Assemblyof the United Nations to foster research anddevelopment in the peaceful uses of nuclearenergy

INEEL – Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory, a multiprogramlaboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho, furnishing

engineering services and products on primarilynuclear energy and related technologies. TheIdaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) at theIdaho site processes highly enriched uranium fuelfrom spent nuclear fuel stored at the site. Inaddition to receiving spent nuclear fuel fromthroughout the DOE defense complex, it stores alarge volume of TRU waste from Rocky Flatsdestined for the WIPP. Prior to 1970, it buriedthis TRU waste, but now stores it on the surface.

IRG – Interagency Review Group on Nuclear WasteManagement. The Carter Administration formedthis group on the recommendation of Secretary ofEnergy Schlesinger. The group consisted of theDOE and eight other agencies together withseveral entities within the Executive Branch,including the Council on Environmental Quafity.

LANL – Los Alamos National Laboratory, amultiprogram laboratory in Los Alamos, NM,conducting research and development on all facetsof nuclear weapon design and basic research in a

vi

variety of areas. A large volume of TRU waste storedon site is destined for the WIPP.

LEAF – Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, U.S.environmental special interest group

LWA – Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act(Pub. L. 102-579-106 Stat. 4777)

MED - Manhattan Engineering District of Army Corps ofEngineers; assigned task of developing atomic bomb in1942

MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MTHM – metric tons of heavy metal; regulatory mass unitin Title 40 CFR Part 191 where heavy metal is all theuranium, plutonium, and thorium ini[ially placed in anuclear power reactor

MRS – Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility for spentfuel from commercial power reactors, proposed in 1982in NWPA and discussed in 1987 in NWPAA (see alsoRSSF)

NAS - National Academy of Sciences, a private, nonprofit,self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholarsengaged in scientific and engineering research. TheAcademy was chartered by Congress in 1863 with themandate to advise the federal government on scientificand technical matters.

NEFTRAN – network flow and transport computerprogram

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,federal law that sets environmental policy by requiringan environmental impact statement on all major federalproject (Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852)

NMED – New Mexico Environment Department.

NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, formed by the1974 Energy Reorganization Act (Pub. L. 93-438) fromthe – tornic Energy Commission

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council, U.S.environmental special interest group

NWPA – Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provides anational policy for the interim storage, monitoredretrievable storage, and eventual disposal of radioactivewaste.

NWPAA – Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of1987, amendments to the NucCear Waste Policy Act of1982 specifying that only a repository site at YuccaMountain was to be characterized by the DOE andplacing less emphasis on the monitored retrievablestorage option

ORNL – Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Y-12 Plant, OakRidge Reservation, Oak Ridge, TN. A large volume ofTRU waste in storage is destined for the WIPP.

OTA – Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress

PA – Performance assessment, the process ofassessing whether a system meets a set ofperformance criteria. For the WIPP PA, thepr-ocess isa stochastic simulation. Thesystem isadeep geologic repository disposal system (in salt)for DOE TRU waste. Theperfonnance criteriaare various long-term environmental metrics inU.S. government regulations (not short-termoperational safety issues).

PRA – Probabilistic risk assessment, the process ofassessing, through a stochastic simulation, therisks from a system. A PRA is identical to aperformance assessment (PA) in the United States;however, the connotations of the two terms differ.A PRA usually connotes (a) a system composedsolely of human-engineered components, and (b)performance criteria that include risk to healthover a short time (e.g., human lifetime) relative togeologic time. A PA usually connotes a systemcomposed of both natural and human-engineeredcomponents over geologic time. Because the timeframe is different, many phenomena for a PRA canbe termed events (short-term phenomena); becausethe components are all human engineered,measured failure rates of components are oftenavailable. The modeling tools in a PRA caninclude elaborate event and fault trees and cansubstitute empirical data for mechanistic models.For a WIPP PA, the event trees are simpler, faulttrees are not used, and mechanistic models areused directly.

QA – quality assurance, all those planned andsystemic actions necessary to provide adequateconfidence that a structure, system, or componentwill perform satisfactorily in service. Qualityassurance for a product is ensuring that theproduct does what it is supposed to do to meet thespecifications of the customer. The customerexpectation, as related to a performanceassessment, is that the analysis results present anadequate view (primarily from a legal standpoint)of the WIPP performance based on currentlyavailable data and information.

RCRA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976 (Pub. L. 94-580) and, as used herein,subsequent amendments (e.g., HSWA, Hazardousand Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Pub. L. 98-616). RCRA establishes a procedure to track andcontrol hazardous wastes from time of generationto disposal. Regulations in Title 40 CFR Parts260-281 implement RCRA with respect tohazardous waste and hazardous waste treatment.

RH-TRU – remotely-handled transuranic waste,packaged TRU waste whose external surface doserate exceeds 200 mrem per hour, but not greaterthan 1000 rem per hour, and thus must be handled

RSSF – Retrievable Surface Storage Facility for spentnuclear fuel and high-level waste proposed in 1972 bythe AEC

RWMC - Radioactive Waste Management Complex, anuclear waste storage facility for the DOE complexbuilt in 1952 at Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory (INEEL)

SA – Stipulated Agreement between the State of NewMexico and the DOE

SAB – Science Advisory Board, EPA

SAR – Safety Analysis Report

SNF – spent nuclear fuel, “. . fuel that has beenwithdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation,the constituent elements of which have not beenseparated by reprocessing” (NWPA, 1982)m6. Spentfuel can include intact and failed fuel assemblies,consolidated fuel rods, non-fuel components that are apart of a fuel assembly (such as neutron sources,instrumentation, and fuel channels). Although spent

nuclear fuel has fissionable 235U, it contains too manyradionuclides (primarily short-lived) that adsorbneutrons from the fission process for it to be usefullyleft in the reactor. Because of spent nuclear fuel’s highvalue, some countries choose to recycle it (recyclingbecomes more attractive after the short-lived fissionproducts have decayed away). It is also designatedseparately from other high-level and transuranic wastesin the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s standardon disposal of radioactive wastes, Title 40 CFR Part191.

SNL – Sandia National Laboratories, a mrdtiprogramlaboratory located in Albuquerque, NM, andLivermore, CA. SNL is operated and managed for theDOE by the Sandia Corporation. From 1949 untilOctober 1993, Sandia Corporation was a wholly ownedsubsidiary of AT&T. Sandia Corporation is currently awholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed MartinCorporation.

SPDV – Site and preliminary design validation phaseperformed by Bechtel National, Inc.

SPM - System Prioritization Methodology, developed bySandia in 1994 and 1995 as an attempt to combineprobabilistic performance assessment results withdecision theory to help prioritize experimental workconducted for the WIPP

SRP – Savannah River Plant Laboratory ProductionReactors Defense Waste Processing Facility, locatedsoutheast of Apgusta, Georgia. A large volume of TRUwaste produced and stored on site is destined for theWIPP.

SWCF – Sandia WIPP Central Files

SWIFT II – Sandia waste isolation flow and transportcomputer code initially developed in the late 1970s andupdated in the mid 1980s

remotely

vii

SWRIC – Southwest Research and InformationCenter, New Mexico special interest group

TRU – TRansUranic, aIl elements of the periodictable having atomic numbers greater than 92

TRUPACT-I – Transuranic Package Transport,design I, designed to be a vented package in thesame shape and size as standard shippingcontainers to facilitate shipment. The EEGobjected to a vented container; so the package wascompletely redesigned (see TRUPACT-11)

TRUPACT-11 - Transuranic Package Transport,design H, designed to be a pressurizedhemispherical package for use on flatbed trucks

USGS – U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior(DOI)

WIPP – Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a full-scale researchand development repository for transuranic wastes nearCarlsbad, NM. WIPP was authorized in 1979 (Pub. L.96- 164) for the management, storage, and eventualdisposal of waste generated by DOE defense programsthat is contaminated with transuranic radionuclides andsome RCRA hazardous chemicals.

WPIO – WIPP Project Integration Office, formed in 1989,forerunner of the Carlsbad Area Office (CAO)

WPO – WIPP Project office, forerunner of the CarlsbadArea Office (CAO)

VIII

Milestones for Disposal of Radioactive Waste at theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant

New Mexico has a long history of involvement innuclear phenomena: In 1942, the ManhattanEngineering District (MED) of the Army Corps

of Engineers selected New Mexico forassembling the scientists, engineers, andtechnicians to develop the first atomic bomb andwhat was to become Los Alamos NationalLaboratory and Sandia National Laboratories(SNL). In 1945, the first atomic explosionoccurred in the desert near Alamogordo, NewMexico. In 1961, the U.S. detonated a device toexplore nonmilitary uses of nuclear explosives inbedded salt near Carlsbad, New Mexico (GnomeProject).T8 Since 1973, New Mexico has been apotential disposal site for waste contaminatedwith transuranic (TRU) nuclear elements createdduring the production of nuclear weapons.T7 Abrief description of this latter aspect is presentedbelow followed by a detailed tabulation ofmilestones of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant(WIPP).

Early History of Nuclear WasteDisposal Related to the WIPP

Around 1944, the MED initially decided to burysolid nuclear waste in shallow trenches andaugered holes at Los Alamos NationalLaboratory in New Mexico, and in railroad cars,trenches, and, underground caissons at theHanford Reservation in Washington. Liquidnuclear waste was stored in ponds at both sites.The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), formedin 1946F] and the precursor to the Department ofEnergy (DOE), continued the practices of theMED. The AEC also constructed storage tanksin the late 1940s at Hanford and completed anuclear waste storage complex at Idaho NationalEngineering and Environmental Laboratory(INEEL) in 1952.

From 1955 through the late 1960s, the AECexplored more permanent solutions forradioactive waste disposal in the United States,

beginning with its request in 1955 that theNational Academy of Sciences (NAS) examinethe disposal issue.D2 In 1957, the NAS reportedthat while various options and disposal sites werefeasible, disposal in salt beds was the mostpromising method to explore.T3 The NAS

reaffirmed that recommendation in 1961.

Frustration at the lack of a formal waste policy atAEC caused the NAS to strongly criticize AECdisposal practices in 1966.N4’‘7’’14

In 1970, the Board of Radioactive WasteManagement of the NAS concluded that beddedsalt was satisfactory and was the safest choicethen available for nuclear waste disposal.T4’ ’16’‘*9 From 1961 through the early 1970s, OakRidge National Laboratory (ORNL) conductedradioactive-waste disposal experiments, mostnotably Project Salt Vault in an abandoned saltmine near Lyons, Kansas, from 1963 to 1967.T10’T11

In May 1969, the Rocky Flats Plant, built by theAEC in 1951 to machine plutonium for nuclearweapons, caught fire. Located only 26 km (16mi) from Denver, Colorado, the fire attractedpublic attention. In its coverage, the pressreported that the cleanup waste was eventually tobe sent to Idaho.T15 Idaho state officials voicedconcerns that it was becoming the nation’snuclear waste disposal site by default. Hence,the AEC quickly moved to find a more suitablesite and tentatively selected the Kansas mine as arepository in June 1970. At the same time, theAEC told Idaho Senator Church that the wastestored in Idaho would be removed by 1980 andsent to the salt mine.D7 Later in 1970, a

conceptual design was completed for a nuclearwaste repository in salt.

Earlier in the year, in March 1970, the AEC haddirected that thereafter TRU nuclear waste wouldbe retrievable stored on the surface in Idaho andelsewhere rather than disposed of in trencheswith low-level waste. In a related action, theAEC directed in 1971 that high-level waste(HLW) be solidified within five years, storedretrievable at all DOE facilities, and delivered toa federal repository within 10 years.DG

In the same year, a large number of drill holesand some solution mining were discovered at theproposed repository site near Lyons, Kansas.T15Soon after, Congress directed the AEC to stopwork on the Lyons project until safety wascertified.

1

Although the Lyons project was not officiallyabandoned until 1975, the AEC announced plansin May 1972 for a Retrievable Surface StorageFacility (RSSF).D9 However, the recently formedU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and anti-nuclear groups claimed the RSSF to bede facto permanent disposal, which prompted theAEC to continue searching for a more suitabledisposal site. T21-2g

Early Studies at the WIPP*

With the encouragement of local citizens and thetacit approval of Governor Bruce King, the AEC,ORNL, and the United States Geological Survey(USGS) recommended the extensive salt beds ofsoutheastern New Mexico.T29 After an initialstudy of existing information, a potential sitenear the edge of the basin was identified in 1973.The first large-scale field test was conducted inMarch 1974 when ORNL drilled wells AEC-7and AEC-8.T144 Also, in 1974, ORNL conductedthe first scenario development and deterministicanalysis for the proposed repository, ‘7 althoughthe project was suspended two months later.

In April 1975, SNL was chosen as the leadlaboratory to (a) select and characterize,T34 (b)develop a conceptual design,T40 (c) draft anenvironmental impact statement (EIS),D1 and (d)initiate scientific studies for the repository.T39After some site characterization, SNLrecommended locating the WIPP site nearer thebasin center where the stratigraphy was morepredictable.T15’ ’33’’34 (A minor repositioning ofthe disposal panels also occurred in 1982.) Thenewly positioned site would become the currentWIPP repository, near Carlsbad, New Mexico.D1]

National policy issues, court settlements, andnegotiated agreements had a strong influence onthe amount and type of scientific data collectedduring the early phase of the WIPP Project. Thepassage by Congress of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 196#3 established abroad national policy requiring an EIS on large

‘ Because the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Project

spans more than 25 years, more events and milestones have

occurred than can easily be covered in a few pages; thus, the

description is selectivetothoseissuesthat do not require

extensive explanations. However, the large influence of

national and regional policy on the type and extent of

scientific studies conducted at the site is still evident.

federally funded projects. The EIS processexerted its influence during the 1970s as theAEC, which later became the Energy Researchand Development Agency (ERDA) and then theDOE,** continued investigations on bedded salt

in general and, specifically, the salt deposit inNew Mexico as a satisfactory medium forhosting a repository.

SNL’S support of the EIS consisted of (amongother things) detailed computer modeling ofradioisotope escape through human intrusion andfaulting, and the potential transport ofradioisotopes through the aquifer overlying theWIPP to the Pecos River over a 250,000-yeartime frame (-10 half-lives of 239Pu), followed bydose calculations to humans. ”

During 1978 and early 1979, and withoutconsultation with the State of New Mexico, themission of the WIPP oscillated betweenincluding and excluding commercial spentnuclear fuel (SNF) and HLW in the repository, inaddition to TRU wastes.D]b’ ‘1’ Also, the newCarter administration required a fresh look atsites and options for nuclear waste disposal. D18-20

Because some of the examined options createduncertainty about DOE’s intentions within thestate and were counter to the ideas of someCongressional members, Congress firmlyestablished the purpose of the WIPP Project as aresearch and development facility for storage and

disposal of TRU waste only (i.e., HLW andcommercial and defense SNF were excluded).Congress also specifically exempted regulationby the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)and thus by default granted self-regulation to theDOE.**’ A national advisory group, the WIPPPanel, which was set up under the Board ofRadioactive Waste Management of the NAS,D11’’137 and an independent state-selected group, the

““The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was formed by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1946.F’ The Energy Research and

Development Agency (ERDA) and the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) were formed by splitting the Atomic

Energy Commission in the 1974 Energy Reorganization

Act.F’o ERDA became the Department of Energy (DOE) in

1977.F’6

““-Although regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) would have been possible, the NRC had

been established to regulate primarily commercial nuclear

reactors and waste. Also, Congress did not favor NRC

oversight of defense-related activities.

2

New Mexico Environmental Evaluation Group(EEG), were established on the initiative of theDOE to monitor its self-regulation.

After the final EISD1 was published in 1980 and arecord of decision published in January 198 1,D24

the DOE proceeded to the preliminary design ofthe WIPP. Planning activities included a site andpreliminary design validation (SPDV) phase,consisting of drilling two shafts in 1981 and1982 and mining an experimental area. Fullconstruction of the WIPP surface facility, anextensive underground experimental area, andone underground disposal panel began in 1983after meeting the terms of the “Consultation andCooperation Agreement” with the State of NewMexico and continued to completion over thenext five years. Simultaneously with design andconstruction, SNL began fielding many in situsalt creep experiments to characterize the localdisposal system.T42’ ’68’ ’77 Although, from apractical standpoint, the predicted and measuredvalues of creep were close, the measured saltcreep was nevertheless about three times greaterthan the predicted values noted in 1985,Tg’>’82

and so by 1989 an alternative mathematicalexpression for the creep phenomenon wasdeveloped.T99

In addition to developing a generalunderstanding of selected natural phenomena asdeemed prudent by SNL scientists (working withpeers in waste management) and/or scientists onthe WIPP Panel of the NAS,D] 1’’137many of thegeotechnical experiments conducted during the1980s were undertaken to satisfy agreementswith the State of New Mexico. Specifically, in1981 in response to a lawsuit, a “StipulatedAgreement” and the “Consultation andCooperation Agreement” mentioned earlier werenegotiated that defined the relationship of theWIPP Project with the State of New Mexico andlisted required geotechnical experiments to beconducted primarily by SNL.N8

These requirements and early drafts of the EPAnuclear waste disposal regulation in Title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations Part 191 (40CFR 191) influenced the type of in situexperiments and activities initially planned at theWIPP. For example, when the WIPP- 12 wasdeepened in 1981 as part of the negotiatedsettlement with the State of New Mexico, theproject encountered a brine reservoir,T@ whichresulted in moving the disposal region -1800 m

to the south in 1982. By March 1983, SNL andthe USGS had examined many of thegeotechnical issues. For example, they hadexplored and dismissed the possibility ofextensive dissolution disrupting therepository .T697’70

The decision by Congress in 1987 to characterizeonly Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the firstcommercial SNF and HLW repositoryF35 causedthe DOE to cancel many of the experimentsbeing performed at the WIPP in support of apotential commercial repository elsewhere inbedded salt. The presence or absence ofadditional pockets of brine below the repositorybecame of concern to the EEG in the early1980s. Therefore, some studies were conductedto try to dismiss their presence.T74 Though thestudies strongly suggested brine pockets were notpresent below the waste rooms in the anhydritelayer in which other brine pockets had beenfound, the studies were unable to showunequivocally that brine pockets did not occur indeeper anhydrite layers in the Castile Formation.Long-term slow seepage of brine trapped in thesalt into the repository became a topic of greatinterest in 1988,N*6 and the full Board ofRadioactive Waste Management of the NASexamined the issue. Members of the NASconcluded that rapid salt creep combined withlow permeability of the salt meant that therepository would be fairly well consolidatedbefore much brine could enter the repository.Tw

In preparation for the WIPP’S planned openingby the end of the 1980s, SNL summarized pastwork and data, and performed numerousbounding calculations to support a DraftSupplemental EIS in 1989.D34’’48 The summaryidentified gas generation—the gas beinggenerated through anoxic corrosion of wastecontainers and degradation of organic material—as an important issue to study.T48 This issue hadbeen identified in the mid 1970s,T47 but it wasdismissed based on the assumption that high saltpermeability values obtained from measurementin boreholes drilled prior to excavating therepository would allow any gas generated todissipate without producing large pressures.

Studying gas generation became an importantpurpose of proposed tests using actual TRUwaste within the repository during a monitoredpilot phase, after better in situ measurements ofthe salt permeability within the excavations in the

3

mid 1980s suggested values three orders ofmagnitude less than those measured in the mid1970s.T90 However Congress stipulatedin 1992

that the waste could be brought to the WIPPprior to demonstrating compliance only if thetests were scientifically necessary. Although thetests would have been potentially reassuring asademonstration, the monitored pilot phase was notconsidered a scientific necessity.

Therefore, in October 1993, the NASrecommendedT124 to eliminate the tests withactual waste at the WIPP (pilot phase) and toperform additional experiments in

laboratories.D38 Without a pilot phase, the DOE

decided to accelerate to the compliance phase forthe WIPP and closed the in situ experimentalarea in October 1995.

Compliance Setting for theWIPP

A major task of the WIPP Project, which wasinitiated about 1986, was developing evidence ofcompliance. The promulgation of 40 CFR 191 in1985 established the primary probabilisticregulation with which the WIPP would have tocomply. However, a legal ruling in 1984F30 andregulations in 1986 and 1987D31 resulted indefining as much as 60~0 of the waste destinedfor the WIPP as chemically hazardous. Thislegal ruling established another set of regulationsthat the WIPP also had to comply with—thosefor hazardous waste (40 CFR 260-270 andanalogous New Mexico regulations) promulgatedin response to the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA).F13

In 1992, Congress defined the process by whichthe WIPP compliance would be evaluated,transferred ownership of the WIPP site to theDOE, and designated the EPA (rather than theDOE) as the regulator of the WIPP (Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Acf45).

This act officially marked the transition from theconstruction and disposal-system-characterize-tion phase to the compliance and testing phases.However, these latter phases had beguninformally in 1985 and 1986 when the EPAissued 40 CFR 191F17 and its interpretation ofmixed hazardous waste, and in 1989 when SNLfirst assessed performance using the EPA

standard.T] 10’111

Finally, in 1996, the EPA promulgated 40 CFR194, a regulation to implement its 40 CFR 191standard, which imposed several newinterpretations, such as expanded human

intrusion activities (specifically, potash mining),and requirements, such as peer review on wastecharacterization, engineered and natural barriers,and conceptual models.F53 Also in 1996,

Congress removed one of the RCRA landdisposal requirements (i.e., seeking a no-migration variance), which required calculationssimilar to those for 40 CFR 19 1.F54

Development of Methodology forAssessing Compliance of the

WIPP

The history of assessing performance of ageologic disposal system began formally in 1976when the ERDA funded two conferences to bringengineers and geologists together to explore themodeling of geologic disposal systems. By1977, demands for permanent solutions tonuclear waste provided an impetus for PresidentGerald Ford to request the EPA to morevigorously pursue applicable standards forproposed waste repositories.D12> ’13

During the EPA’s development of 40 CFR 191 inthe late 1970s and early 1980s, analysts at SNLwere advocates for a thorough approach inevaluating modeling uncertainty (caused byvarious parameters in models of the exposurepathways and the uncertainty about the variouspathways) as a way to gain insight about thebehavior of a geologic waste repository. Forexample, an analysis that SNL had conducted forthe EIS had relied heavily on mathematicalmodeling.

SNL’s position on this matter had developedindirectly from participation by a few Sandianson the 60-member team for the Nuclear ReactorSafety StudyF12 and Sandia’s direct involvementon several subsequent reactor accident studies forthe NRC. In addition, SNL’S advocacy for aprobabilistic approach was influenced by its useof the approach in evaluating the reliability ofweapons systems and also by the growingacceptance externally for evaluatingtechnological risks.

During this period, the term performanceassessment (PA) was adopted internationally to

4

describe the process of evaluating whether ageologic disposal system complied with theregulatory criteria-criteria that wereprobabilistic in the United States, thus makingthe assessment identical to probabilistic riskassessments (PRA) for nuclear reactors.

Performance assessments of systems for thedisposal of radioactive wastes neverthelessdiffered from most simulations used by federalagencies to explore policy options in twosignificant and related ways. First, in contrastwith simulations for policy analysis, the EPAchose to use the PA results for the WIPPultimately to test compliance of a real systemwith an existing environmental standard, notmerely to gain insight into the behavior of thesystem. Second, the fact that part of the disposalsystem was geologic created several differenceswith some other types of risk assessments. Forinstance, the geologic portion of the disposalsystem introduced the necessity to characterizerather than design. Furthermore, geologiccomponents of a waste disposal system aresubject to natural processes over geologic timewith no discrete failure points; hence, computer-implemented phenomenological models wereneeded in order to include geologic processes.

In August 1986, SNL accepted DOE’s formalrequest to take responsibility for showingcompliance of the WIPP with 40 CFR 19 1.D29’’30To gain proficiency and also to enable theproject to better adapt efforts to collectinformation on important processes, SNLconducted four preliminary performanceassessments from 1989 through 1992, each onebuilding upon the other.

T11O,Till, T116, T117, T121, T125

The use of mathematical models and the generallong-term flow path for radioisotope release wassimilar to the initial EIS, but the simulations werestochastic and numerous complexities wereadded, such as human intrusion causingradioisotope releases from drill cuttings. Hence,between January 1988 and December 1991, asignificant effort was expended in developing acomputational modeling system, CAMCON.T3]’’91’’92”* 15 Furthermore, vast numbers of recordsand documents were produced to ensure that thereasoning behind choices for data and modelswas traceable and repeatable.

In October 1996, the performance assessment forthe Compliance Certification Application (CCA)was submitted to the EPA showing compliance

with 40 CFR 19 1.T*35’’13sWhile not responsiblefor evaluating compliance, the NAS also issued a

report in October that noted the excellentfeatures of the WIPP site for containing nuclearwaste. ‘137’ ’138 These same conclusions wereechoed in the 84,000-page second SupplementalEIS issued in November.m3

Between 1995 and 1997, the EPA and itscontractors evaluated the CCA and supportingdocumentation.F55 The Conceptual Model PeerReview Group (formed in response torequirements in 40 CFR 194) concluded in early1997 that 22 of the 24 conceptual models wereadequate. The panel thought that, thoughconservative, the model for spallings(particulate carried to the surface by pressurizedgas and/or brine during a hypothetical drillingintrusion in the repository at a future time) lackedsufficient realism; hence, the panel required themodel to be redeveloped. The panel also thoughtthe description of the behavior of the magnesiumoxide (MgO) backfill needed improvement.During the next few months, more detailedcalculations of the spalling phenomenon wererun to demonstrate the conservatism of thecurrent model and DOE’s commitment todevelop a more realistic model before the nextcertification in five years.T140 Also, additionalinformation was provided on the behavior of theMgO backfill such that the Conceptual ModelPeer Review Group concluded in an Aprilmeeting that these two modeling issues had beenresolved. In addition, under the direction of theEPA, the PA calculations were rerun by SNLduring the spring and sununer, using EPA-selected values and distributions for 26parameters to help bolster EPA confidence in theresults.

Finally, in October 1997, the EPA published adraft rule proposing to approve the WIPP.F57’ ’58In May 1998, the EPA issued certification.F59 InMarch 1999, Judge Penn lifted his injunctionassociated with a 1992 lawsuit by the State ofNew Mexico, and four days later the WIPPreceived its first shipment of non-RCRAwaste. T142, T143

Summary

The opening of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant onMarch 26, 1999, was the culmination of aregulatory assessment process that had taken 25

5

years. National policy issues, negotiatedagreements, and court settlements during the first15 years of the project had a strong influence onthe amount and type of scientific data collectedup to this point. Assessment activities before themid 1980s were undertaken primarily (1) tosatisfy needs for environmental impactstatements, (2) to satisfy negotiated agreementswith the State of New Mexico, or (3) to developgeneral understanding of selected naturalphenomena associated with nuclear waste

disposal.

In the last 10 years, federal compliance policyand actual regulations were sketched out, andcontinued to evolve until 1996. During thisperiod, stochastic simulations were introduced asa tool for the assessment of the WIPP’sperformance, and four preliminary performanceassessments, one compliance performanceassessment, and one verification performanceassessment were performed.

Detailed Tabulation of WIPP Milestones

In the following tabulation of WIPP milestones, the history of the WIPP is divided into four main

categories. One category highlights technical milestones, and three categories highlight the major political

events that have influenced the WIPP Project, as briefly summarized above. Noteworthy events from all

four categories are also shown schematically. The tabulation also indicates two temporal categories of the

WIPP Project-one used officially by the DOE for the project as a whole and one used informally by SNL

to describe its various activities.

r HI.6S42-6212

8

Milestones for Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the United States

Time NoteworthyEvents

1972 Lyonsme judgedmacceptab19

@

LY NS

u 1973Carlsbad

* locationchosen

wclear-aactors

1974 ORNLconducts

~~~..;,Scenariodevelop Il. = *men!andconsequence ‘W -.,malysis OfWIPP 4

,,

m;::::: moved toward

. . . . .

k-1976 ERDA.9driKedat center of WIPP site

. . r ,+................

976Ford” ““dors demonstratwn ofmlear waste disposal

979 Bishop,s Lod eCom#~renceto explore RA

TechnicslMilestones Related

to the WIPP

~ 1973- Nationwide search for suitable saltsite resurm?d.~~>,TZ,ZZ.714.T26.Ta,TZ7,TZ8,7mAEC, USGS, and ORNL recommend south.eastern NM (lack of boreholes 2 miles fromsite impoftant selection criterion but relaxedto 1 mile in 1975).

-—- --- .— -- --~ 1974- Man ORNL begins field mvestigatior

for the Bedded %lt Pilot Plant (BSPP) bydfilkng AEC-7 and AEC-8. ‘30.m) Aug: Draof first major Probabilistic FUskAssessment(PRA) pub fished on fwo reacfors by 60 merrber team for Nuclear Regulatory Commissio(NRC): method uses fault trees to synthesizprobability of totat system failure. 732Ott:ORNL conducts flffit scenario developmentand determinisffc analysis for WIPP, 17 Protbifify of meteorite impact, proba~fify of fault(and volcanism), and exploratory drltling intesecfing disposal area estimated.

~ 1975- Mar: Sa.da National Laboratodes(SNL) receives fun~ng and starts four tasksselecting site and characterizing, producingconceptual design, drafting EIS, initiatingscientific studies. May ERDA.6 dtifled atNW corner of otiginal ORNL sitq encountendeformed salt beds and hits brine and H2Smuch deeper.”3 SNL recommendsrelocation and project moves site -11 km(7 mi) toward center of Delaware Basin toavoid deformed salt beds as indicated by oilwell fogs. 115’34 SNL begins screening grobto use for pfugging borehole3 ‘“

~ 1976- SNL begins site charactefizafion andengineering design program at new sale;varous natural backfills such as apatite or saltbentoni[e considered for use in repository. ”Parsons, Btinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas,Inc. describe hypothetical HLW reposito~ inbedded salt for Office of Nuclear Waste ISOIItion of ERDA. 737 APK ERDA-9 drilled intoCastile Formation near center of new site.Laboratoy tests on TRU waste behavior an,HLW packages iniwated. ’38’31

U.S. Presidentand DOE:

Directives and Decisions

~ 1972- May AEC abandons Lyonsproject. AEC announces Plans forRetrievable Su!face Storage Facillty(RSSF) for radioactive wastes. “’ AECChairman asks for Probatillsfic ,%kAssessment (PRA) of core meftdown.

D 1973. AEC Chairman: D.L. Ray

--- ---- --—— -B 1974- AEC promises Idaho that wastes

wit be shipped in the 1980s. MaY WIPPwork suspended until 1975 because AECwishes to emphasize RSSF and AECChairman Ray will not withdraw land fromoil exploration because of oil embargo. ‘<0

) 1975- Jan: ERDA asks SNL, located inNM, to oversee investiaafions rather thanORNL and suggests a; opening date of1982. ERDA removes WIPP fromcommercial repository program.

~ 1976- Jan: Project is officially named the“Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.””’ Ocl: Fordorders major expansion of ERDA program Idemonstrate permanent tisposal for nuclecwaste by 1985 and orders EPA to developgenerally applicable standards. ’12 Dj3 ER[funds conference on modeling of geologicdmoosal svstems to brina enaineer3 andgeologists”together to ex~lor; predictinggeological features, events, and processes(FEPs). ””

Federal Legislation, JudicialDecisions, and Regulatory

Requirements Relatedto Nuclear Waste Disposal

b 1972- EPA and anti-nuclear groupsclalm RSSF de facto permanent dkposalin RSSF EIS. ‘n ‘Y

-—- --— —-- ---) 1974- Ott Energy Reorganization Act ‘~”

splits AEC into Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion (NRC) and Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA) effeCtive Januafy1975.

B 1975. NRC promulgates “AS Low AsReasonably Achievable(c (ALARA) policyfor hmifing ratiafion exposure.”’ Octi NRCfinal PRA for nuclear reactors. ‘“

) 1976. ReSOWCeConsewafion and RecoveryAct (RCRA)”3 seeks to reduce or eliminatehazardous waste generation to minimizepresent and future thraat to human health amenvironment. Dee: EPA announces intent todevelop radiation protection standards forHLW tisposal. ‘<Q NRC funds panel ot earthscientists to identify events and processesthat could dsrupt a generic repository. ‘“

Legal Challenges andNew Mexico, National,

and World Issues

~ 1973- With tacit approval of Gov. King,local political leaders and potash mmeoperators invite AEC to southeastern NM.(This strong local and political supportfrom southeastern NM facditates theWIPP process.) ‘4 Ocv Arab oil embargo 1against U.S.

~ 1974- Gov. King establishes Governor’sTechnical Excellence Committee; createsWIPP oversight subcommittee.

--- --— —-—I 1975- AG: Anaya.

-—

977

978

979

1

1II

IIII

III

III

iIIII

i:i

;

;

:h,

:

,

icc1IIIIIIII

IIIII

1977 WIPP conced.aldesign with ‘.twolevels ~, ij.~~

,.,,,, ,

@+

.(1977 DOE

*K created

1978 Oversight by WIPPpanel of NASand NM EEGbegins

978 SNL tests gas’Ieneralion potential of

1979 Con ress definesbmission of IPP

A

and passes WIPP {.b!ll for TRU “waste only :ln/,

1979 Draff EIS on WIPPhas option for comnwnxlSNF and conducts

;~)~y’” II ““!,L,7,/, ,

~ 1977- JUIX SNL issues conceptual designreporf of WIPP reposibxy wlfh two levels. ’40WIPP conceptual design report issued. 140SNL plugs ERDA-i Oto test pluggingboreholes in salt. “’ 142 INEEL begins riskanalysis of alternatives for TRU wa9te 9toredand burfed at RWMC over next 4 yr. ’63 LosAlamos, Savannah Fdver, and Hanford beginslmllar studies as well. Human intrusion evelsignificant contributor to consequences inthese studies,

r 1978- SNL begins design of the TransuranicPackage Transporf, design I (TRUPACT-1)using standard cargo box concept. ’44145146Jan: Efechtel National starts as WIPP Archi-tecffEngineer (AfE). Jun: WestinghouseElecttic Corp. starls as Technical SuppoIIContractor. SNL raises concern about gasgeneration and contracts with Los Alamos todo laboratory tests. ’47 In response to DOErequest to review scientific aspects of WIPPProject, WIPP Panel of BRWM of NAS holdsfir~tmeeting. T,O Aug: SNL completes

geologic characferizafion repoti “4 support-ing Drstf EIS on WIPP; transmissivify valuesof Culebra from four wells are available. 146Hydrologic and radioisotope transport model-ing for EIS is primarily regional and extendsfor 2S0,000 yr (1Ohalf lives of 23gPu)usinglarge, 3-D Swift flow model. T4g NRC fundsSNL to work on probabHisfic PA and apply tohypothetical bedded salt repositrmy T50.T51Now Labstudies focu90n fitaniumalloy9folHLW canisters, T42

r 1979 -To develop necesswy predictive capaMOY,T52 SNLbegins3-yr prefimlnarytestprograms on thermafIstmctural effects innearby potash mine, T53and Avery Island,Louisiana, dome salt. T54.T56Consolidationofcrushed salt studied. Tb2 First insitu per-meatifity measurement of Salado Formationsalffrom AEC-7well (values 1000 fimeslarger than found when measured wrthin repositcry in 1988) ‘%; Bechtel identifies seven potentialhorizons for WIPP. SNLcompletesdevelopment of scenarios for release fromWIPP(paff of EISprocess). ~57 Laboratorymeasurements made of permeability onERDA.9core. T42APK Draft EISon WIPPpubfished.14g Asparfof EISprocess, SNLcompletes development of scenatios forrelease of ra~oisotopes from WIPP (methodabandons fault trees and uses simple evenftrees) .T57T58 Three major classes ofscenar.ios identified (connection betweenCulebra [above repository] and BeA Canyon[below repository] aquifers, U-tube connectioto Culebra, and stagnant pool connection toCulebra) plus dtilfingintmsion. (Later U-fubespit into catastrophic connection and stand-ard Lf4ubeconnection. )14g Probabififiesofscenarios assigned based on qua fitafive rea.soned arguments. Jul: Prelminay Titleldesign of WIPP completed.

, ... . --- c... . . .. ------- . . . .. ,3, , - u“= 0... .x!llewl$ysl -W:

Carter announces plan to defer indefinitelyreprocessing of commercial spent nuclearfuel (SNF). D15Now Although role of NRCaf WIPP unclear, DOE tells NRC it plansto seek ficense to build and operate WIPPbased on poficy from Carter administration.(WIPP returns to commercial wastereposito~ program.)

) 1978. DOEsuggesfs opening date off985. D1600 EDeputy Sec. Jerv OLearypromises NM Congressional delegation“if NM did not wish to have the WIPP,then itcould vetothe plan.” BothComptroller Gen. and DOE Gem Counselstate OLeaiy powerfess fo grant “stateveto. <’01700 Econducts local hearingsunproposed WIPP. Ott: Deutch(Massachusetts Institute of Technology[MIT] chemistry professor) report writtenfor OOE recommends (f)disposingTRU waste at WIPP wifhout planning forretrieval and (2)demonstrafing SNF,HLW, and TRU disposal at WIPP, DIED19DOE Deputy Sec. J. OLeaW presseson with second recommendation untilt 979 enabling law for WIPP as a wayto satisfy California law banning nuclearpower plants until SNF disposaldemonstrated. ’10

~1979-Mac President fomwlnteragencyReview Group (IRG), in response toDeutch reporf to recommend type ofnuclear waste dsposal, and recommendsdisposal of SNF, HLW, and TRU in minedgeologic repositories in final report.’0Report also suggests making WIPPcanddate for commercial SNF reDositow.Apc 00 Edefinesprojectasa ‘combination mifitarylcommercial repositoryin oraft EIS. D’eml Based on saltpermeabifify tests in AEC-7 well, 00Ecancels all gas generation and someback~ll experiment$. DOE buy90ifandgas leases for $19 milfion.

r1977-Octi DOE Organizaffon Act F15cre.ates ca~net-level Department of Energy(DOE) from ERDA. Feb Inrespo.setoFords directive, EPA conducts first publicwotishop to understand public concerns andtechnical issues of waste disposal. FI~.F17Apr: Second meeting of NRCpanelofearfhscientists occurs to identify events and proc-ess. Ff4

I 1978-Jam EPAannounces pub ficforumtodevelop protection criteria for radioactivewastes. F16Now EPApublishes’’Criteria forRadioactive Wastes” as guidance for federalagencies and seeks comments. ’10

r1979- May House Armed Services Cam-mittee cuts WIPP funding in response toOLeary’s (DOE’s) expansion of the projectto a repository for commercial SNF andthus requiring NRC hcensing (even if fordemons fration only). De~ Congressdefines mission ’19 of WIPP

- sets up WIPP as a research and devel-opment facility for disposal of only TRUradioactive waste from DOE facilities

- exempts WIPP from NRC hcensing- requires 00E to sign a “COnSuMdiOn &

Cooperation” (C&C) Agreement with NM.EPA defines TRU waste as waste wifhacfivitj greater than 100nCtig. Fm

D 1977 -NM Hazardous Waste Act N5seekstomaintain environmental qualify.

~ 1978- DOE contracts with NM to estabhsh ~Environmental Evaluation Group (EEG)to ~provide afull-time, independent assess. ~menf of WIPP and oversee environment,pubfichealth andsafety. Although OOE- ~funded, EEG is initially made a part ofEnvironmental Improvement Division of the ~NM Health &Environment Department. ~Thegeneral understanding is neither DOE !nor NMwould aftempt to bias orinteiiere !in EEGs technical conclusions. EEGbecomes second permanent outside over-sight group 9et up by DOE (first was NASWIPPPanelof BRWM). NM House almostpa9se9 ballot proposal for constitutionalamendment to keep nuclear waste fromNM.

b ~97~- ~G:%in~am~n.–Le~sl~u r~es~b-–lishes (i) Governors Radioactive WasteConsultation Task Force to negotiate withDOE and (2) Legislative Radioactive andHazardous Materials Committee to reviewtask force. ‘e


TimeLine

980

981

NoteworthyEvents

1990 Final EISm WIPP ,, ;-

,<,,;/,

41981 Wstshafiirilled

1991 SNLrepoflsck PA)f hypoy~salt SIIR

&e

1981 Stipulated agree.nent between DOE and

TechnicalMilestones Related

to the WIPP

D 1980- Westinghouse completes first SafetyAnalysis Repofi (SAR). ‘w General AtomicTechnologies started as AfE for TRUPACT.(used SNL basic concept but chanoeddetalfs). SNL asked to analyze and testTRUPACT.I when built.

-—- --- --- -——~ 1981- Tests begun in nearby potash mine,

Mississippi Chemical Mm? Co,, to evaluatecorrosion of potential waste canisters andoverpack afloys. TeOMay WIPP beginsaugering for first shalt, which ushers in SPDphase olWIPP. Fenix&Sc!sson, SPDVconstruction contractor, begins augering firsshaft ([his exploratory shaft later calledconstruction and salt handling shaft and thesalt handNng shaft) .Te<To2 Jun: Drillingofsecond 3.6 m shaft beoins (this waste shaftinitially calfed ventilation shaft). Jul: Drill(n{ontfrst shaft begins. Stipulated Agreement(SA) between New Mexico and DOEdescribes dwupbve scenatios (e.g., brecciapipe, salt dissolubon, and salt deformation)that are to be dismissed through further sitecharacterization. Te3Ocv Rrst3.6mshaHcompleted. Nov: Project strikes pressuredbrine resermr ’64 while deepeningWIPP-t 2 nofth of the repository (as part ofStipulated Agreement [SA]). Extensive test!and analysis continue on WIPP-12 through1983.’4” Three tes[ssetupinneafbyMississippi chemical potash mine fo evaluatfluid migration insalfformations. rm DetiDtilfing of second shaft begins. Draft of finalreporf to NRCon performance assessment(PA) of hypothetical bedded salt repositoryreadlfy available ’51’65 – uses a set of looseconnected codes, precursors to SWIFT II 1~:(fluid flow code), and NEFTRAN ‘= (networtranspwtcode). lAEA recommendsprocedure for PA and pofential list of eventsand Droces$es forscenarios ’67

U.S. President Federal Legislation, Judicialand DOE: Decisions, and Regulatory

Directives and Decisions Requirements Relatedto Nuclear Waste Disposal

r 1980- Feb: Carter orders SNF reproc- ● 1980. Jd: Home Armed SeNices COm-

essing to stop. ’22 Mac Cafter rescinds~

mdtee disagrees with Carter proposal;t 9s0 hinds for WIPP and announces therefore, rescinded funds are returned tointeflm strategy to set aside money for ~ WIPP mid-y t!ar.possible future waste disposal projects at 7WIPP. Ocfi DOE issues final EIS elimi. g

nating SNF and HLW disposal and there ~.by reinstates WIPP mission defined by ~Congress in 1979.0’ Nov: DOE applies cto Department of Interior (DOI) for admin- %.istrative withdrawal of land for Site and ~Preliminmy Design Validation (SPDV)experiments at WI PP. Dz3

---- —-- --- --- -——— ——— ——— —--

I 1981 - Jan DOE Dublishes Record of 1.1981- Feb NRC promulgates ficensifwDecision to proceed with SPDV phase. ’24Feb Atfer reviewing prel!minafy design,DOE okays defailed (Title II ’25) designphase. DOE Sec Edwards. Jun: DOEWIPP Project Mgr. McGough rekindlesdisagreements between DOE and NewMexico by stating HLW could be placed by1983 and remain during the operatingphase of WIPP. Sep: After revlewlngpreliminary design, DOE okays defaileddesign phase. ’25

procedures for SNF and HLW disposal (ngml~gkrepositories. ’21 Disfrict COuft denic

Citizens for Alternatives to RadioactiveDumping (CARD) motion for a prelimina~in@nctiOnagains! constricting WI PP. Oraft(but not final) Nuclear Waste POIICYAct(NWPA) definea TRU waSte as waStecontaminated with transuranic radioisotopeswith haff.life greater than 20 yr and activitygreater than 100 nCilg. ‘Zz Mar Developinggeneric disposal ctitefia for radioactivewastes is difficult, thus EPA starts developinstandards for each waste type.’=


and World Issues

) 1980 -NM and DOE begin negotlabonson C&C Agreement to define proceduresand process of cooperation.

r 1981- Jan: In response to Record ofDecision DOE proceeds with SPDV

. Mar: CARD files lawsuit and asksfor prefiminav injunction.’7

. May NM AG sues DOE and DOIalleging viokNfons of federal andstate laws.’0

. Jul: Southwest Research and 7Information Center (swRIC) files zlawsuit ‘g and begins strategy of cfifing numerous interrogatories to ;

which DOE musf respond. :

In response to lawsuits, ‘a DOE Sec ~Edwards visits NM, talks to Gov. King, ~and accedes in a SfiQulated Agreement(SA) to demands for (1) geotechnical ~

experiments, (2) SNL reporf on 17 Iechni.cal issues (e.g., dfsmptive scenados suchas breccia oiDe. salt dissolution, and saltdeformation ihat are to be examined bySNL), (3) state and pubffc review of WIPPchanges, and (4) creation of a statel fed-eral task force to oversee tmnspottationissues (e.g., emergency response andhighway upgrades). C&C Agreementanached as Appentix A, ‘8Working Agree-men?’ as Appentix B. Ns U.S. Oist. JudgeBurciaga stays lawsuit in accordance withSA. Coalition 101Diecf Action at WfPPdemonstrates against construction. EEGrecommends relocating TRU storageaway from WIPP-I 2.

982

((

983

1

(

984 ‘

F1982 USGS dismisses

I concerns about, breccia

pipes

; ,;~,..<,

&\\\\

~ I 1982 Disposal

IIIII

IIII

II

1984 SNL begins fieldingmany underground

experiments

SJl l~ti.111[1[ rLiii5~ ..: ,r.. n . ....-.1

[)IIIi

r 1982- Mac Second 1.8 m shaft completed(-80 m [270 H] of drilfing fluid Ieff in theshaft). Westinghouse suggests eliminatingfourth shaft along with other cost saving~easures. 18<T82 May; Repository level

selected, Jun: Army CorP.s of Engineersassumes responsibility for all phases of con-struction management. Jul: Dtiling O!DOE-1 started and completed to top of Anhy.dote I in Castile Fm. Ocb Undergroundexcavation sta!ted to connect the two shaftsNow Excavations connect the two existingshafts. Foflowing evaluation of WIPP-f 2,TRU disposal area moved -t S00 m (6000 ff)south (experimental area left in otiginal area),Schedule calls for opening WIPP in Apri19S9. First shaft sealing concepts presented,SNL pubfishes report outfining in situ tests toperform in next several years, ‘m De.: SNLcompletes interim report on dissolution ofevaporates in and around the Delaware Basin‘eg (part of 5A). uSGS completes brecciapipe reporf (part of 5A) and dismisses con-cerns. T70

r 1983- Mac SNL, USGS, and contractorscomplete most repo!ts required by 5A (e.g.,USGS reports Culebra transmissivify at 20locations ‘“ ‘7’; SNL reports on groundwaterflow i“ Rustler Fm. T72and detormafion of

evapotites near WIPP 173;technical suppoticontractor, Westinghouse, reports on brineresemoirs in the Casfile Fm. 164). Excavationof experimental rooms begins, and Bechtelbegins final (Title Ill) design. Apc WIPPPanel NAS tours WIPP underground to exam-ine spDv te~f~, ~4 May ReP05it0V Ievei

selected. Ock Drilling of pilot hole for t~rdshaft begins (exhaust shaft) and is completedin December, TM TW Aug Deepening ofCabin Baby started and completed to BellCanyon Fro.; geophysical logs run and deepsandstones in Bell Canyon hydrologicallytested. 176’78

r 1984- Feb Raised bore reaming completedof third shaft. Apn As rooms excavated,SNL begins many thermak.buctural andwaste package (e.g., defense HLW) fieldtests defined in f 982, ushefing in the systemcharacterization phase of project. T4z.‘fig.T77Pumping tests at DOE-1 suggest fractureflow in Culebra. First in situ gas flow mess.uremenf conducted around undergrounddtiff. ’78 Jun: Second shaft enlarged from1,8 m to 6 m. Te1T6pAUW SNL drills andtests DOE-2. ’79 General Atomic Technolo-gies completes one containeq SNL sends it tcORNL fest faclfify because container exceedsSNL weight limit for 30 ft drop and puncturetest, etc., required in t OCFR 71 Tao;containerpassas tests.

) 1983- DOE Sec Hodel, Mac 00E givesSPDV repotis to NM and allows 60.daycomment period. m In response toquestions by EEG, DOE concludas draft40 CFR 191 appfies to disposaf phase butnot test phase of WIPP. May ORNLcomplex edmits releasing 2 x 10e lb of Hgfrom Y-12 plant between 1950 and 1977.Revelation prompfs Natural ResourcesDefense Council (NRDC) and LegalEnvironmental Assistance Foundation(LEAF) to We DOE.’7 Juf: DOEannounces decision to proceed withconstruction. ’28 Sep: DOE sets Octoberf 966 as WIPP Opening date.

) 1984. Man Manager of AlbuquerqueOperations Office (AL) moves WIPPProject Ofice (WPO) to Carlsbad.

I ● 19S2. Courts dedine to relieve DOE fromresponding to numerous SWRIC interrogato-ries. Mac DOI approvas DOE’s appficafionfor administrative withdrawal of 36 x 1W mz(6960 acres) for conducting SPDV experi-ments for E Yr, F24 De~ NIWpA passes Fz5:

- sets up trust fund, funded by utilities,to pay for SNF and HLW repository

- rsaulres NRC ticenslna of reDositow- seis acceptable risk oil 000 “deafh~

f 0,000 yr- StateS SNF and HLW from DOE lacIfities

will go to reposltov unless Presidentobjectssuggests DOE build MonitoredRetrievable Storage (MRS) Facility

EPA pubfishes working draft 20 of envirorvmental standards for radioactive waste man.agemenf as proposed 40 CFR 19f. ’26

] 1983. Congress allocates $5,6 M for roadimprovement in NM. Jan - Sep: EPAsScience AdvisoW Board (SAB) holds publicmeetings on 40 CFR 191. Jun: DO I

aPPrOves land withdrawal for 8 yr for a36x 106 m2 area to construct WI PP. ’27NRC promulgates technical criteria forwaste dsposal in geologic repositoriesand includes by reference the yet-to-bepromulgated EPA standard on wa$f’adiSDOSal.F28

E 1984. Feb: EPA SAB endorses probabifisfic

approach of 40 CFR f 91 buf states pedorm.ante criteria too restrictive and recommendsseveral changes. ‘m Apr: LEAF vs. Hodel ’30requires DOE to apply both the technical andprocedural requirements of RCRA to DOEfacilities even fhough AEA exempted DOEfrom many environment and human healthlaws. Now Hazardous andSofid Waste Amendments (HSWA) ‘sl toRCRA ban land disposal of hazardous wSStewithout treatmant unless disposal site andgenerator demonstrate “no migration” ofconstituents for as long as waste remainahazardous.

) 1982. DeG .?wpplemental 5A signed(1) committing DOE to seek funds forupgrading highways in NM, (2) committingDOE to more geotechnical studies, and(3) mating DOE hable for WIPP-relatedaccidents.”0

<

.— - --- --- .— -) 1983. AG: Bardacke, May: After review-

ing results from SPDV program, EEGconcludes that “the Los Medafios sitehas been Charsctedzed in sufficient detailto warrant confidence in the vaffdafion ofthe site for permanent emplacement ofapproximately 6 million fp (1,75 x f 0s m3)Of defense TRU waste,” but also recoin.mends additional studies to reSOIVeoutstanding geotechnical [sSues such asevaluation of potential for brine reservoirs.N1I A“g: EEG issues reporl and Gover-nor holds press conference on concernabout potentially explosive hydrogen gasin TRUPACT-f. ‘<2 Sep CARD and Sier.m Club allege that DOE and EEG arecollaboraf ina to deceive NM about safetvof WIPR fh~y also insist on NRC Iicens[ng ~of WIPP.

) 1984- Nw: Ffrst modification to C&CAgreement limiting remote-handled (RH)TRU waste amount to 5.1 x 10“ CL


TimLin

E

986

987

NoteworthyEvents

985 EPA WI,.,

o~~~~~~ “a~

1985 SNL

k

reports.. . . .d,screpmcy .“”I. creepUrsthmtedatln 1982

1986 EPAslatesm,xed

cye::bjact,1.y$:gp“&~NIPP waste)

i 987Bmwpocketscannotbedwmissed


to the WIPP

k1995-J.n: Blasllng olthird shaft to final4,6mdfametor completed. Excavation be.gins forcircularroom H. SNLreportsondis-crepancy between measured and predictedsalt creep first hinted at in south drdt m1982.rsl ‘U General Atomic Technologiesdisassembles TRUPACT-I and cuts in halthalf with door rebudt while rebuitdmg,pun..ture damage replicated t. match damage inoriginal TRUPACT-1. Wlththe deflmtionofa5-km boundary to the disposal system in40 CFR 19f, prolect begins to focus moreon near-field hydrologic modeling rath9r thanregional mcdefing. Apr&Oct SNLturnsonheat for simulated defense h!gh.level waste(DHLW) canister experiments.

) 1986. Feb: Pillarcree ptestbegin sincirmdarroomH. Heated (accelerated) testsof CH-TRU and RH-TRUcontainer behaviorstart. TRUPACT-l passes flretestatSNL. T83rm First insituinjectod brine flowmeasurement to determ!ne permeabilityaround dtiffs. T4zOtt In preparation foroperations, Westinghouse awardedManagement 6 Operation (M&O) contract.AnnY Corps of Engineers rdieved ofconstruction management duties.

k 1987- SNL finds possibifhy.1 a pressurizedbrine resewoir below the TRU disposal areawmotberuledout. T74.77G Lack ofdo.blecontainment in TRUPACT-I becomes majormsue.T85186Wetsalt compaction tests con-eluded, constitutivs equation for consollda-tton developed, and shaft consolidationmodeled (effective consolidation predictedIn. 100yr). T42Man SNLfindstllatporous-media flow assumption adequatelymodels flow in Culebra at H-3 but thattransport !s best modeled as dual porositymedia ’87 (though roughly approximated asequivalent porous medi.). r7eT8’Ta’ Mod’+ing with variable brine densmes suggestsCulebra acting a$ leaky confined aquifec ’87subsequent models Ignored suggestion until1997. Also model suggests htghlytransmis-sive zone In the Culebra to the south of H.11and DOE-1.r87 Ott Nuclear Packagingbacomes AIE for the Transur.mc PackageTransport design II (TRUPACT-H); SNLagain selected as DOE technical advisor.



I 1985 -DOE Sec. Hartingtotl Presidentapproves the three repository candidates mrecommended by DOE tar SNF and HLW.President concurs with DOE recommendationthat defense SNF and HLW be disposed of Incommercial reposdoqf. Nob! DOEattamptsto define ‘<by-productmaterla~ to includemixed waste and thus exclude EPAregulation.

I 1986 -Aug: DOEasks SNLtoassess performanceof WlPPagalnst40CFR 191 crit.arm(Performance Assessment [PA]).029 SNLaccepts PA task. ‘m

1987- May DOEr6defines ,,by-prod.ctmater!a~ to exclude everything exceptrad!onuchdas,and thereby TRU wasteis subject to RCRA (and HSWA), osl Jul:Agreement between Department of Labor(DOL) and DOE on mine inspections. ’32OCC DOEselects Nuclear Packagingconceptual design for TRUPACT-11.



r 1985. Othce of Technology As+se$smant(OTA), an agency of Congress, concludes noinsurmountable technical obstacles for gee.logic reposdories.’32 Sep: EPA promul-gates 40 CFR t 91 for disposal of SNF, HLW,and TRU in a geologm repository ’17- probabhtlc crherla mdlrectly based

on population health risk- requests Inclusfonof all uncedmdy

In 40 CFR 191, EPAd8fine$ TRU waste aswaste with activltj greater thzm 100 “Cdg andhalf-hfeareder than 20 W, Pmmulaabonbegins the fransifion of (he WIPP to”com.pliance phase.

[ 1986- EPA sfates that mixed wasfe (rado-acfive wast9 also meetmg hazardom wastedefinition) is subject to RCRA and hazard-ous waste regulations. ’33 NRC promul-gates probabibsfic safety goals for nuclearreactors that are similar to 40 CFR 191.’=

~ 1987- Jul: In response to tegal challengesto individual and groundwater protectionrequirements in subpart B, Cowf of Appealsfor first Circuit m Boston vacates and remandsall of 40 CFR 191 to EPA. ‘s4 Sep: Couftreinstates Subpart A of 40 CFR t91 inresponseto EPA request. Dec NuclearWaste PoficYAmendments Act (NWPAA) 6*Gselects Yucca Mt., NV, to undergo sitecharacterizationfor potential SNF and HLWdlsposahbecause bedded salt nof beingconsidered SNF and HLW tests at WIPPunnecessary.


and World Issues

} 1985. Jam NM recewes EPA authorlzatlorto regulate hazardous wastes.”3 Feb:Natural Resources Oefense Council [NRDCsues EPA to issue 40 CFR 191 as mandatein NWPA of 1982, ‘?4 EEG notif!es DOE th~the single-shelled, vented rectangulartransportation container for TRU waste,TRUPACT-I is unacceptable for NM.”5

D 1996- Mac NRDC and others sueEPA over groundwater and individualprotection standards m 40 CFR 191.

———————-—— ——} 1997. AG: Strwbm Amicipating co” fllcts

between radioactive and hazardous wasteregulations, NM Ieg!slature exampts WIPPfrom hazardous waste regulations. Aug:second modlflcatlon to C&C Agreementcommitting DOE to comply with allapplicable laws and regulations, anddiscourage WIPP compliance by way ofgra”dfathrmng, variance, exemption, orwaive~ and use 40 CFR 191 as firstissued for evaluating WIPP complianceuntil reissued by EPA; NRC andDepartment of Transpo!tat!on (DOT)regs apply to WIPP transport. Dac:Envircmmentalgroups m,se concern ofbrine seepage into reposdoty ‘~$

1

1

1988

1989

1988 Brine seepagento WIPP /

$

)ig Issue r ,,,SUII’S!+ ..,.:

,,

989 Berfin Wall falls

-

989 Demo for WIPP PA

H

k 1988- May WIPP begins drilling fourth shaft ● 1988- Sep: DOE announces that WIPP will(air intake shaft) after reevaluating 19S2 not open as scheduled in Oct. Dee: DOEdecision to efimlnate it. Sep SNL reports on abruptly cancels SNF and HLW experimentsin situ Dermeabihtv (1000 times lower than because of NWPAA [no funds available tot 979) and small poiential brine inflow. ‘m

I containers)remove and examine simulated disposal

Members of NAS BRWM (not WIPP Panel)study btine inflow conclude no problem butSU99eStbrine inflow test and less waste beused for pilot phase. First prototype ofTRUPACT-11 passes structural tests, but failsengulfing fire test al seals. SNL begins workon CAMCON to link detailed consequencemodels in probabilistic PA. ’31 TW 792 SNLalso simultaneously begins work on prototypeof CAMCON to meet Dec. t 989 dead fine.SNL completes pumping tests at HI 11’3 andbegins using results 10cafibrale regional flowmodel. ’84 ‘9s

~ 1989. SNL reports o. ree.aluaUon ofCulebra permeatifity at AEC-7 and D.266wells ‘~; Culebra transmissivity available at41 locations. ’48 Jan & Feb Redesignedseals of TRUPACT-11 pass engulfing fireIeSI, T97Ja”. Aug: Q tunnel mined and

instrumented for brine inflow experiment. ’98Feb: SNL resolves dkcrepancies betweenmeasured and predicted salt creep. ‘“Westinghouse completes “no-migration<’petition for RCRA variance for WIPP pilotphase. T!m 1101 Mac SNL completes reportto supporf Oraff Supplemental EIS; reportidentifies generation of gases from containerand waste corrosion as issue (see t 978)because salt permeabihty factor of t 000lower than thought in t 979. Based on initialanalysis results in February, DOE fundsSNL to conduct new studies of gas genera-tion, TTW7103T?Od,1?06, T!M, 1?07A@, different

flow direction in past duting wet climatehypothesized to explain discrepancybetween geochemical analysis and currenthydrologic flow in Culebra. ““ DOE issuesOraft Supplemental EIS. Ttoa‘lW Oec: SNLreevaluates release scenarios and issuesWIPP PA demonstration outlining processfor future PAs. TIIO1717No release withouthuman intnisiov out of 26 parameters, solu-tifity, intrusion time, and borehole permeabil-iV most important cuttings from direct dtill-ing set at three drums.

+ 1989. OOE See: Watkins. Jan: DOE

I

files request for administrative withdrawalof 16 miz with DOI (less than half of landallowed by 40 CFR 191). ‘w Mac DOEissues Draft Supplemental EIS,’4Watkins creates “Blue Ribbon Panef’to examine WIPP readiness. Jun:Watkins announces an indefinite delaym opening of WIPP. Wattins creates‘(tiger teams” to examine environment,safety, and heallh issues throughoutDOE defense complex. ’36

I 1988 -NM Congressmen ask NAS BRWM tostudy brine inflow controversy, With con fin-ued technical problems (e.g., TRUPACT-11not yet ticensed), NM Congressional delega-tion cannot reach consensus, and WIPP Lan<whhdrawal fegislation~es. NM Congress-men get Congress to reassign EEG to theNew Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro in Sep because of conflictsbetween NM state government and EEG.’*Congressman Richardson insists upon fullcompfianceof WlPPwith40CFR 191 beforereceipt of any waste and funding for roadsattached to bill. ’37

~ 1989 -Aug: NRCapproves thepressurized transportation containerfor shipping contact-handled (CH)TRU to TRUPACT-11.

I 1988-Jam EEGissues repoffon poten-fialbrine resewoirs under WIPP, OceIdaho Gov. Andrus bans shipments ofradioactive waste into state becauseWIPPnot open. Dee: lDGov. Andrus,CO Gov. Romer, and NM Gov. Carruthersmeet in Salt Lake City to discuss WIPPand options fo avert shutdown of DOERocky Flats Plant from lack of storageauthorized by CO, and inabihty to ship toID because of imposed ban by Gov. And-ru$ 00E agrees to vigorously pursueboth administrative and legislative landwithdrawal for WIPP. ‘~7

c 1989- Legislature unanimously removes“WIPP exemption” in hazardous wastelaws so EPA will grant authority toregulate ra~oacfive mixed waste. NorBertin Wall falk signaling the end of theCold War and greatly changing futuredemands for nuclear weapon materialand, thus, amount and composition ofTRU waste going to WIPP.


TimeLine

990

991

NoteworthyEvents

990 ConstructIon.

,,,,YuTplemental ~jEls

990 Flrstfull PAof WIPPt989 PA was demo) uses

““c”’=, :m

n. B

. .

. .

1991Maior mcdels bnkedk lnWIPPPA

75


to the WIPP

~ 1990- Jan: Construction officially complete.SNL and Westinghouse complete report onthe PilOttest phase of WIPP ’112suggestingthat a waste amount equal to 0.5% of capaci-ty be brought to WIPP for gas generationexperiments. May Westinghouse completes‘,Final,HSafety Analys!s Report. ’113 SNLrefines FEP screening and analyzesfour scenarios (Eo, El, E2, EIE2). ‘7M Dee:SNL issues fimt full PA highlighting we ofCAMCON modetino system 1115.T? le. T, 17

(e.g. seconda~ parameter database complet.cd). Coupling of code demonstrated, whichallowed better evaluation such as sensitivityanalysis. PA includes both scenario andparameter uncertainty: out of three parame.ters, solubdify, intrusion time, and boreholepermeability importanb cuttings from directdtilting important release pathway.

r 1991- Westinghouse completes Parts Aand B of RCRA permit app~cafion. 1<q8Apr&Aug: Toextend tifeofmoml,panel 1 for gas generauon tests, internaland external panels meet and recommendroof support Sep: Westinghouse completesconstruction of roof support.~!qg~~zo DeeSNL issues second PA highlighting majorcomponents of the PA process and docu.merits T121(e.g., rigorous useofscenatiosand 9eOStafisfics for transmissivify fields); 46parameters sampled; cuttingsmost Important release pathway



r1990-Jan: DOEissues Final Supplemental EIS. D2eJun: 00 Eissues“Record of Decision” on WIPP FinalSupplemental EIS stating construction isoficially complete, testing phase (-5 yr)should proceed, and then anotherSupplemental EIS should be preparedbefore going to full operation.’7

~ 1991 -lnresponse toaudit, AL manager ~creates WIPPPrOiect lntegrafion Office ;(WPIO)in Albuquerque over WPOin zCarlsbad. ~

,~

i.:$



~1990- Octi EPA issues no-migrationvariance for test phase of WI PP. ‘“

~ 1991- Jan: DOI modifies administrativeland withdrawal order to allow test phase ofWIPP. ‘3e ’40’43 Mac House InteriorCommittee adopts NM CongressmanRichardson’s resolution to nullity DOI.moti.tied land withdrawal order (action allowedunder Federal Land POIICYand ManagementAct [FLPMA]). ’42 Sep: 9th Circuit Cowt ofAppeals rules state ban on rafloacfive wasteshjpments imposed by Gov. Andrus of Idahois illegal. ’43 Ott: DOI again grants adminis-trative land withdrawal after Watkins cerOfiesall environmental pemitting requirementshave been met. ““


and World Issues

} 1990- Jul: NM granted authorify byEPA to regulate radioactive mixedwaste, and fhus WIPP waste becomessubject to NM regulations. ’18 NMEnvironmental Improvement Divisionrequests submittal of Pans A and B ofRCRA permit. OCK NM designates“preferred mute<’for waste transportfrom northern border to WIPP.

(

———————-— ---} 1991- AG: Udall. Ott AG Udall files

10oo-page lawsuit in US. District Court forthe OiattiCf of Columbia to delay stati oftest phase at WIPP by challenging theadministrative land withdrawaL “S

u

(

I

im

I993

I994

t!!1992 Refinements

... to mcdels (e g.,::,, 2. transmissivit..:: Jbelds) in WI P PA

A

1992 Congress

!%%/% f,

1992 NAS questions needfor in situ gas

generation

testst!#

?

I 1993 DOE

@

decides not to ‘ttest wasta atWIPP .

0,0..#“&j%+%,.,’40C R191

1995 Tracer testbegins in Culebra

L.

[

I

k 1992- SNL and Westinghouse COmPlOtework necessary to mod~y Test Phase Planfor gas generation tests. “2’ Westinghousecompletes work necessary for modifyingWaste Rettieval Plan. “23 JUIV NAS WIPPPanel sends letter to DOE questioningscientific need for in situ was[e tests atWIPP. “24 Dee: SNL issues third PArefining models and data used in the PA,uncertainty in transmissivity fields refined,49 parameters sampled, evaluated fime-dependent ). Darameter in Poisson intrusionmodel: direct’cutfings most importantpathway. Tw5

) 1993 -Brine inflow to Qtunnelcanbeexplained as either dewatering of disturbedrock zone or Darcy tlow through salt.

) 1994. Mac SNLexplores possiMlityofMing PA with decision analysis in SystemPrioritization Methodology (SPM); resultsform basis of Draft Compliance CertificationApPficatlon(DCCA). Aug: SNLseekspermits fo drill new wells for tracer test inCulebra.

~1995-Feb: Drilfngofwellsf ortracertestsbegins. Sep: Gasgeneration studescompleted and results used to establish ratesforccA.T12%1127 Octi lTCorp. completescosVbenefO study for Westinghouse and DOEof engineered barrier altemafives required by40 CFR194. T’28 Dec DOE publishesupdated revision of WIPP inventory. “nComputer specialists fired to modifyCAMCON implementation to enforce softwarfconfiguration management and control runsfor PAcalculafions. Second attempt at SPM.

I 1992 -Aug DOEsubmits applicafiontoNaw Mexico Environment Department(NMED) for RCRA permit for test phase.

r1993-OOE Sec Hazel OLeary. OctiDOE concuffi with NAS and decides notto emplace waste in a pilot phase atWIPP-lab tests instead. oq8 DOEdecides to make draft ComplianceCerfificafion Appffcaffon (CCA) to EPA.Because actual waste nof coming toWI PP,’Wntests’’ canci?lled. DecOLeafy disbands WPIO in Albuquerqueand selects new personnel for CarfsbadArea Otice (CAO) (old WPO with newfunctions) and tirect repotting toUndersecretary T. Grumbly. ’39

~ 1995-Mac DOEsubmits DCCAto EPA for~ev,ew, D40 M,qI: DOE SUbmitSparf BOf

RCRApennit application to NMED. D41OckDOE halts all in situ experiments and closesarea in repository.

r1992-Ott WIPPLand WOhdrawal Act(LWA) F45:

. transfers land from DOI to DOE- establishes EPA as regulator for WIPP

(removing self-regulation by DOE); com-pliance requirements (different from WIPPPanel or EEG) to be set in 40 CFR 194

- requires recertifying site every 5 yr- reinstates Subpart B of 40 CFR 191,

except disputed aspects of individual andgroundwater protection requirements

- requires DOE cooperation and consult-ation with EEG

- NM given $600 million over 30 yrEnergy Policy Act ‘W- asks NAS to recommend disposal criteria

for Yucca Mt.- requires EPA and NRC to reevaluate

their disposal criteria for Yucca Mt.Federal Facifiiy Compliance Act ’47:- waives federal sovereign immunity for

civil and crfminal liability for RCRA vio-lations and thus brings DOE facilitiesunder jurfsdicfion of states but exemptsmixed waste stored by DOE

Washington DC District COUII Judga Penngrants preffminaiy injunction to stop testingwith TRU wssteat WIPP, Penn rules WIPPdoes not quafffy for inte!fm status underRCRA, thus must get permits before ratherthan during operation.

~1993-Feb: EPAannounces intenttopromulgate 40 CFR 194 to specifyrequirements for implementing 40 CFR 191at WI PP. f48 Deti Inresponsetocourfremand and WIPP LWA, EPA repmmulgates40 CFR 191 toaddress individual andaroundwater protection requirements, and;akes other changes -no influentialchanges for WI PP. 64’

~ 1994 -Congress authorizes funding for EEGfor additional 5 yr. ‘w

I 1995- NASprovides guidance onnewregu-Iation for potential Yucca Mt. rapo$itow sug-gests repotiing risk from human intrusion separately. Jan: EPAproposes compfiancecri.teriafor WlPPin40CFR194. F51 May DOEcomments that 40 CFR 194 exceeds scope o40 CFR 191. OCC EPAisauea draff of non-~~~ding Compliance Application Guide (CAG)

~ 1992 -Environmental Oefense Fund (EDF)and NROC join the NM lawsuit and seekto make RCRA issues more important(e.g., interim status of WIPP). ’20

I 1993 -Mayor Forrest of Cadsbaddemands more economic benefits accrueto city of Carfsbad from WI PP. N2~NZZNMED issues Oraft RCRA permit for testphase. NZ3

---- -——- —--— -


TimeLine

996

997

NoteworthyEvents

1996 EPAstates howtomplemant raclo.

c

@* If.,etctlve waste ~$dandardin10CFR 194

d

m“

,.

996 SNL completes PAmWIPPcettiticatiOn: mo’19van requtred to sendODIESto EPA

996 SNL concludes dualorosity model explains

o

anspotim I ~

:ulebra ~..+...-. ,s=.

..,,,..—––. .,,s.,

997 Conceptual Mcdel,eer Review Groupmwoves W1PP mcdels,.

M


to the WIPP

r 1996- APC SNL completes tracer test inCulebr% decides dual-porosity modelreasonable and single-porosity transpotialternative model COuldbe ruled out. 1131:132Jul: SNL reports on early results of retarda-tion batch experiments. ““ TIU Tests onsolubiliV reported for use by CCA. OchSNL completes PA for CCA of WIPP thatincludes MgO backfill mining scenario, andgreater mtrmon ratq except for few vectors,dill cutbngs only release pathway 57parameters sampled. ’13s ’136 Calculationrun three times with 100 samples each,takes 37,000 CPU hrs on 40 DEC alphaprocessors, and retains 100 GB of data in97,000 tile8. Now NAS reporls that WIPPsite “excallent choice” geologically. ‘1$7’138

r 1997- Jan: Conceptual Model Peer ReviewGroup (formed in response to 40 CFR 194)concludes 22 of 24 conceptual modelsadequate. Spalfings model must ba redonebecause unrealistic and MgO backfilldascripfion improved. Mac SNL conductsmini-PA for EPA to do parametric sensifiviiyanalysis of PA model parameters Iacklng‘“iron-clad defense. Apc ConceptualModel Peer Review Group reports that withadditional information provided by SNL,they are satisfied that the model of thekfgO backfill is adequate ’13s and that theyhave sufficient understanding of how muchthe spallings model overestimates spanvolumes. ’140 DOE commits to develop aless conservative, more realistic spallingsmodel by the time of receftiflcation. MaYSNL explains apparent discrepancy betweengeohydrology and geochemistry by viewingflow in Culebra as a 3D regional system. TM?As part of EPA evaluation of CCA, SNL runsPA calculations using EPA-selected valuesfor 26 parameters and EPA-selectedmodel assumptions, based on results fromparameter review team commants in Oec 96and sensitivity analysis in Mar 97,



~ 1996- Ott: DOE sends 80,000. page,400-lb. CCA to EPA. ’42 NOW DOEissues 84,000-page second SupplementalDraft El S. D43D44

~ 1997- DOE Secreta~: Petia. Jan: DOEholds hearings on second SupplementalOraff EIS fOr WIPP in Catisbad, Albwquerque, and Santa Fe, Naw Mexico. ’45SeP: Final second Supplemental EIS onWIPP Dubfished. ‘4s



~ 1986. Feb: EPA promulgates final40 CFR 194; directs DOE to consider addi-tional cdteria in assessing system pa ffOr-mance F53:

requires waste characterization analysi$and engineered barrier evaluation

- requires a monitoring systemspecifies requirements on quality as-surance (QA), peer review, and experfjudgment

- requires peer review on waste charac-terization, engineered and naturalbantars, and corICeptUal modelsexpands human activities (e.g., potashmining) to consider in performanceassessment

Sep: Congress amends WIPP LWA andrelieves WIPP of need to comply with landdisposal restrictions ot RCRA, but otherrequirements of RCRA still apply. ‘“ De=EPA begins detailed evaluation of CCA andsupporting information at SNL and else-where, including SNL PA conceptual mod.els, computer codes, model parameters,QA records, and specific technical issws

(e.g., MgO backtill’and passive institutionalcontrol). ’55

I 1997- May In letter to DOE secretay,EPA Administrator Browner decrees DOEapplication “complete”; this starts the i .yrclock for review of CCA. Jun: AppealsCourt in Washington rules meetings betweenEPA and DOE proper when one agencyproposes regulations for another agency asrequired by Executive Order and says NMand TX “lawsuit is without basis”. “e OCCEPA issues draft rule to approve WIPP withconditions requires use of panel seals usedin PA; dasign raquires QA for wastagenarator% lists requirements for usingprocess knowledge to characterize waSleS;requires schedule for mstalfing passwecontrols; denies any protecbve credit forpassive controls and 120.day publiccomment period begins. ‘“


and World Issues

E 1986. Apn NM AG Udall sues EPAalleging improper meetings wereheld between EPA and DOE aboutrequirements in proposed 40 CFR 194regulation. NZ4

—

I Johnson Administration

m

I + I

19

References

References for U.S. President and DOE: Directivesand Decisions

DI

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1980.Final Environmental Impact Statement: Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant. DOE/EIS-0026.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy,Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs.VOIS. 1-2.

Boffey, P.M. 1975. “Radioactive Waste

Disposaf: The Atomic Energy Commission

Brings the Academy to Heel,” The Brain Bankof America: An Inquiry into the Politics of

Science. P.M. Boffey. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill Book Company. 89-111, 276-278.

Teller, E. 1959. “The Plowshare Program,”Proceedings of the Second Plowshare

Symposium, San Francisco, CA, May 13-15,1959. UCRL-5675. Livermore, CA:

Livermore Radiation Laboratory. 8-13. (Copyon tile in the Sandia WIPP Central Files[SWCF], Sandia National Laboratories,Albuquerque, NM as WPO#44080.)

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1985. Background Information Document for

Final Rule. High-LeveG and Transuranic

Radioactive Wastes, EPA 520/1 -85-023.Washington, DC: Office of Radiation

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency,

Perge, A. 1982. “Historical Overview,”

Proceedings of Alpha-Contaminated Waste

Management Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD,

August 10-13, 1982. CONF-820845. Oak

Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.17-30.

AEC (Atomic Energy Commission). 1970.“Title 10-Atomic Energy Chapter I–AtomicEnergy Commission Part 50-Licensing of

Production and Utilization Facilities, Siting ofFuel Reprocessing Plants and Related WasteManagement Facilities,” Federal Register. Vol.

35, no. 222, 17530-17533.

Lipschutz, R.D. 1980. Radioactive Waste:

Politics, Technology, and Risk. Cambridge,

MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, ADivision of Harper& Row. 119, 144.

AEC (Atomic Energy Commission). 1971.

Environmental Statemenr: Radioactive WasteRepository, Lyons, Kansas. WASH-1503.

[Washington, DC]: United States Atomic

D9

D1O

Dll

D12

D13

D14

D15

20

Energy Commission. (Copy on file in the

SWCF as WPO#47929.)

Metlay, D.S. 1978. “History and Interpretation

of Radioactive Waste Management in the

United States, ” Essays on Issues Relevant to theRegulation of Radioactive Waste Management.

W.P. Bishop, I.R. Hoos, N. Hilberry, D.S.Metlay, and R.A. Watson. NUREG-04 12.Washington, DC: Division of Fuel Cycle and

Material Safety, Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. 6-9.

Carter, L.J. 1987. Nuclear Imperatives andPublic Trust: Dealing with Radioactive Waste.

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future,

Inc.; [Baltimore. MD]: Distributed by JohnHopkins University Press. 64-69,86, 177.

NAS/NRC (National Academy of

Sciences/National Research Council). 1984.Review of the Scientific and Technical Criteria

for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).DOE/DP/48015- 1. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1985. “40 CFR Part 191: Environmental

Standards for the Management and Disposal ofSpent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and

Transuranic Radioactive Wastes; Final Rule,”Federal Register. Vol. 50, no. 182, 38066-

38089.

Ford, G.R. 1976. “The White House FactSheet: President’s Nuclear Waste ManagementPlan.” October 28, 1976. Washington, DC:

Office of the White House Press Secretary. (Onfile at Gerald R. Ford Library, 1000 BeaIAvenue, Ann Arbor, MI, Telephone: 3131741-

2218.)

Logan, S.E. 1976. Workshop on Geologic

Data Requirements for Radioactive WasteManagement Assessment Models, Santa Fe,

NM, June 28-Ju[y 1, 1976. Y/OWI/SUB-

76/8 1726, UNM Report No. NE-27(76), Union

Carbide 297-1. Albuquerque, NM: Universityof New Mexico, College of Engineering,

Bureau of Engineering Research for Office ofWaste Isolation, Union Carbide Corporation,

Nuclear Division. (Copy on file in the SWCFas WPO#52833.)

Sjoblom, G, 1982. “Regulatory Policy of theEPA Related to Alpha-Contaminated Waste,”Proceedings of Alpha-Contaminated WasteManagement Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD,

August 10-13, 1982. CONF-820845. Oak


D16 Weart, W.D. 1979. “WIPP: A Bedded SaltRepository for Defense Radioactive Waste in

Southeastern New Mexico,” Radioactive Waste

in Geologic Storage, 176’b Annual Meeting of

the American Chemical Society, Miami Beach,

FL, September 11-15, 1978. Ed. S. Fried. ACS

Symposium Series No. 100. SAND78-0934C.Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.13-36.

D17 McAuliffe, D. 1978. “Licensing Impasse andNew Mexico Emotions May Force DOE toBury WIPP,” Nucleonics Week. Vol. 19, no. 36,2-3.

Dl 8 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1978.

Report of Task Force for Review of Nuclear

Waste Management. Draft. DOEA3R-0004JD.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy,Directorate of Energy Research.

D19 Carter, L.J. 1978. “Trouble Even in NewMexico for Nuclear Waste Disposal,” Science.Vol. 199, no. 4333, 1050-1051.

D20 IRG (Interagency Review Group on NuclearWaste Management). 1979. Report to thePresident by the Interagency Review Group on

Nuclear Waste Management. TID-29442.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.(Copy on file in the SWCF as WPO#47934.)

D21 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1979.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant. DOE/EIS-O026-D.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.Vols. 1-2.

D22 Carter, J.E. 1982. “Appendix A: Presidential

Message and Fact Sheet of February 12, 1980,”The Politics of Nuclear Waste. Ed. E.W.Colglazier, Jr. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

220-241.

D23 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1980. “NewMexico; Proposed Withdrawal and Reservationsof Lands,” Federal Register. Vol. 45, no. 223,

75768-75769.

D24 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1981.“Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP): Record ofDecision,” Federal Register. Vol. 46, no. 18,9162-9164.


“Definitive Design (Title H),” Project

Management System. DOE Order 4700.1.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

V-40 through V-41. (Copy on tile in the SWCF

as WPO#48333.j


Summary of the Results of the Evaluation of theWIPP Site and Prelimina~ Design Validation

Program. WIPP-DOE- 161. Albuquerque, NM:U.S. Department of Energy. (Copy on file in

the SWCF as WPO#48675.)

D27 LEAF (Legal Environmental Assistance

Foundation, Inc.) and Natural ResourcesDefense Council, Inc., State of Tennessee on

behalf of Tennessee Department of Health andEnvironment (Intervening Plaintiff) v. DonaldHodel, Secretary, United States Department ofEnergy and United States Department ofEnergy. No. CIV. 3-83-562. 1984. 586

Federal Supplement 1163. (Copy on file in theSWCFas WPO#48129.)


“Announcement of Decision to Proceed withConstruction of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant(WIPP),” Federal Register. Vol. 48, no. 128,30427-30428.

D29 Krenz, D.L. 1986. Letter dated August 1986 toEvert H. Beckner, Vice President, EnergyPrograms, Sandia National Laboratories fromD.L. Krenz, Assistant Manager for Projects andEnergy Programs, DOE Albuquerque

Operations Office. (Copy on file in the SWCFas PAO0820.)

D30 Beckner, E.H. 1986. Letter dated Aug. 29,1986, to Mr. Dennis L. Krenz, AssistantManager to Projects and Energy Programs,DOE Albuquerque Operations Office, E.H.Beckner, Vice President, Energy Programs,Sandia National Laboratories. (Copy on file inthe SWCF as PAO0820.)

D31 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1987. “10

CFR Part 962 Radioactive Waste–ByproductMaterial,” Federal Register. Vol. 52, no. 84,15937-15941.

D32 “Memorandum of Understanding between theU.S. Department of Energy and the U.S.Department of Labor,” signed by R.L. Bernard,DOL Administrator for Metal and NonmetalMine Safety and Health, and R.G. Romatowski,DOE Manager of Albuquerque Operations

Office, dated July 9, 1987. (Copy on file in theSWCF as WPO#9992.)

D33 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1982. “40 CFR Part 191: Environmental


Transuranic Radioactive Wastes; Proposed

Rule,” Federal Register. Vol. 47, no. 250,

58196-58206.


“Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; Availability ofDraft Supplement to the Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement,” Federal Register. Vol. 54,

no. 76, 16350-16352.

D35 McCutcheon, C. 1989. “Embattled WIPP

Won’t Open in ‘89,” Albuquerque Journal.

June 28, 1989. Section A, pages 1,3.

D36 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1990. FinalSupplement Environmental Impact Statement,

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. DOE/EIS-O026-FS.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Environmental Restoration and WasteManagement. Vols. 1-13.

D37 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1990.“Record of Decision; Waste Isolation PilotPlant,” Federal Register. Vol. 55, no. 121,

25689-25692.

D38 Anonymous. 1993. “Reversal on Nuclear

Waste Tests,” Science News. Vol. 144, no. 19,303.

D39 McCutcheon, C. 1993. “WIPP Staff Won’tMove to Carlsbad,” Albuquerque Journal. June11, 1993. Section D, page 3.


Draft 40 CFR 191 Compliance CertificationApplication for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Phase II Review. DOE/CAO-Predeci sional

Draft-2056. Carlsbad, NM: U.S. Departmentof Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, CadsbadArea Office. Books 1-2. (Copy on file in the

SWCFasWP0#21135 and WP0#21 136.)


Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Part

B Permit Application. DOEAVIPP 91-005,

Rev. 5. Carlsbad, NM: Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant. Vols. I-X.

D42 Taugher, M. 1996. “Key WIPP DocumentExceeds 400 Lbs,” Albuquerque Journal.

November 21, 1996. Section D, page 3.

D43 Chiri, T.W. 1996. “Documentation Puts WIPP

Opening Closer,” Carlsbad Current-Argus.

November 21, 1996. Section A, pages 1,2.

D44 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1996.Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement. November 1996. DOE/EIS-O026-S-2. Carlsbad, NM: U.S. Department ofEnergy, Carlsbad Area Office.

D45 Spohn, L. 1997. “Last Series of WIPP

Hearings to Begin Monday,” AlbuquerqueTribune. January 4, 1997. Section A, page 3.

D46 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1997. Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

DOE/EIS-O026-S-2. Carlsbad, NM: Us.Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office.

22

References for Federal Legislation, JudicialDecisions, and Regulatory Requirements Relatedto Nuclear Waste Dkposal

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

F9

F1O

F11

Pub. L. 79-585. 1946. Atomic Energy Act of

1946. (60 Stat. 755). (Copy on file in the

SWCFas WPO#43711.)

Pub. L. 83-703. 1954. Atomic Energy Act of

1954. (68 Stat. 919). (Copy on file in theSWCF as WPO#43705.)

Pub. L. 91-190. 1970. National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969. (83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C.4321 et seq.).

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1993. “Part l–Statement of Organization and

General Information,” Code of FederalRegulations 40, Part 1. Washington, DC:

Superintendent of Documents, Us.

Government Printing Office.

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. 1970.Federal Register. Vol. 35, no. 194, 15623-

15626. (5 U.S.C. 903, Paragraph 301, Section2(a)6; 84 Stat. 2086).


Proceedings of Alpha-Contaminated WasteManagement Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD,

August 10-13, 1982. CONF-820845. OakRidge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.17-30.

Pub. L. 93-438. 1974. Energy Reorganization

Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1233; 42 U.S.C. 5801 etseq.).

Carter, L.J. 1987. Nuclear Imperatives and

Public Trust: Dealing with Radioactive Waste.Washington, DC: Resources for the Future,

Inc.; [Baltimore, MD]: Distributed by JohnsHopkins University Press. 64-69,86, 177.

MRSRC (Monitored Retrievable StorageReview Commission). 1989. Nuclear Waste: IS

There a Need for Federal Interim Storage?Report of the Monitored Retrievable StorageReview Commission, November 1, 1989.Washington, DC: Superintendent ofDocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office.(Copy on file in the SWCF as WPO#51784.)

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1976. “40 CFR Part 260: EnvironmentalRadiation Protection Standards for High-Level

Radioactive Waste; Advance Notice ofProposed Rtdemaking,” Federal Register. Vol.41, no. 235,53363.

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1975.“1O CFR Part 50, Appendix I–Numerical

F12

F13

F14

F15

F16

F17

F18

F19

F20

Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting

Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion‘As Low as Practicable’ for Radioactive Material

in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor

Effluents,” Federal Register. Vol. 40, no. 87,19442-19443.

Rasmussen, N.C. 1975. Reactor Safety Study:

An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S.

Commercial Nuclear Power Plants.

NUREG-75/014, WASH-1400. Washington,

DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.(Available from the NTIS as PB-248 200-Set.)

Pub. L. 94-580. 1976. Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act of 1976. (90 Stat. 2795 andsubsequent amendments; 42 U.S.C. 6901 et

seq.).

Krenz, D.L. 1986. Letter dated August 1986 toEvert H. Beckner, Vice President, EnergyPrograms, Sandia National Laboratories fromD.L. Krenz, Assistant Manager for Projects andEnergy Programs, DOE Albuquerque

Operations Office. (Copy on file in the SWCFas PAO0820.)

Pub. L. 95-91. 1977. Department of Energy

Organization Act. (91 Stat. 565; 42 U.S.C.7101 et seq.).

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1978. “Environmental Protection Criteria forRadioactive Wastes: Announcement of PublicForum,” Federal Register. VOI. 43, no. 10,

2223.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1985. “40 CFR Part 19 I: Environmental


Transuranic Radioactive Wastes; Final Rule,”Federal Register. Vol. 50, no. 182, 38066-

38089.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1978. “Criteria for Radioactive Wastes;Invitation for Comment: EnvironmentalProtection,” Federal Register. Vol. 43, no. 221,53262-53268.

Pub. L. 96-164. 1979. Department of Energy

National Security and Military Applications ofNuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1980. (93

Stat. 1259).

Sjoblom, G. 1982. “Regulatory Policy of theEPA Related to Alpha-Contaminated Waste,”Proceedings of Alpha-Contaminated Waste


August 10-13, 1982. CONF-820845. Oak

23


F21 NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1981.

“Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in

Geologic Repositories: Licensing Procedures,”Federal Register. Vol. 46, no. 37, 13971-13987.

F22 Freiwald, J. 1982. “Legislature and PoliticalAspects of Waste Disposal,” Proceedings of

Alpha-Contaminated Waste Management

Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD, August 10-13,

1982. CONF-820845. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak

Ridge National Laboratory. 35-38.

F23 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

1985. Background Information Document:

Final Rule for High-Level and Transuranic

Radioactive Wastes. EPA 520/1 -85-023.

Washington, DC: Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Radiation Programs.

F24 DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). Bureau

of Land Management. 1982, “43 CFR PublicLand Order 6232. New Mexico; Withdrawal ofLands:’ Federal Register. Vol. 47, no. 61,

13340.

F25 Pub. L. 97-425. 1983. Nuclear Waste Policy

Act of 1982. (96 Stat. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 10101 et.seq.).

F26 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

1982. “40 CFR Part 191: Environmental

Standards for the Management and Disposal ofSpent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level andTransuranic Radioactive Wastes; Proposed

Rule,” Federal Register. Vol. 47, no. 250,

58196-58206.

F27 DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). Bureauof Land Management. 1983. “43 CFR PublicLand Order 6403. New Mexico; Withdrawal ofLands,” Federal Register. Vol. 48, no. 130,

31038-31039.

F28 NRC (Nuclew Regulatory Commission). 1983.“10 CFR Part 60 Disposal of High-Level

Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories:Technical Criteria; Final Rule,” Federal

Register. Vol. 48, no. 120,28194-28229.

F29 SAB (EPA Science Adviso~ Board). 1984.

Report on the Review of Proposed

Environmental Standards for the Management

and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Leveland Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR

191). Washington, DC: High-Level

Radioactive Waste Disposal Subcommittee,Science Advisory Board, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

F30 Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation,Inc. and Natural Resources Defense Council,

Inc., State of Tennessee on behalf of TennesseeDepartment of Health and Environment(Intervening Plaintiff) v. Donald Hodel,

Secretary, United States Department of Energyand United States Department of Energy. No.

CIV. 3-83-562. 1984.586 Federal Supplement

1163. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#48129.)

F31 Pub. L. 98-616. 1984. The Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. (98 Stat.

3221).

F32 U.S. Congress. Office of Technology

Assessment. 1985. Managing the Nation’s

Commercial High-Level Radioactive Waste.OTA-O-171. Washington, DC: Superintendentof Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#48316.)

F33 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1986. “State Authorization To Regulate theHazardous Components of Radioactive MixedWastes Under the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act; Notice,” Federal Register. Vol.

51, no. 128,24504-24505.

F34 NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.) v. United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, et al. 1987.824 Federal Reporter, 2d

Series 1258. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#43240.)

F35 Pub. L. 100-203. 1987. Nuclear Waste Policy

Amendments Act of 1987. (101 Stat. 1330; 42

U.S.C. 10101 et seq.).

F36 Pub. L. 100-456. 1988. National Defense

Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989. (102 Stat.1918).

F37 Wieck, P. R., and B. Spice. 1988. “DelegationBuries WIPP Bill for Session,” Albuquerque

Journal. October 4, 1988. Section A, pp. 1, 3.

F38 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1990. “Conditional No-Migration

Determination for the Department of EnergyWaste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP),” Federal

Register. Vol. 55, no. 220,47700-47721.


of Land Management. 1991. “43 CFR PublicLand Order 6826. Modification of Public Land

Order No. 6503; New Mexico,” FederalRegister. Vol. 56, no. 18,3038-3039.


of Land Management. 1991, “Record of

Decision (ROD), Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

24

F41

F42

F43

F44

F45

F46

F47

F48

F49

F50

F51

(WIPP) Project; New Mexico,” Federal

Register. Vol. 56, no. 18,3114-3115.

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). Bureau

of Land Management. 1991. “43 CFR PublicLand Order 6826. Modification of Public Land

Order No. 6403; New Mexico,” Federal

Register. Vol. 56, no. 29,5731.

Pub. L. 94-579. 1976. Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of 1976. (90 Stat. 2743;43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

State of Idaho, Petitioner, Shoshone-BannockTribes, Interveners, v. U.S. Department ofEnergy, Respondent, Public Service Companyof Colorado, Intervener. No. 91-70094. UnitedStates Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. DecidedSeptember 20, 1991.945 Federal Reporter, 2d

Series 295. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#48323.)

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). Bureauof Land Management. 1991. “Notice to

Proceed, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)Project, New Mexico,” Federal Register. Vol.

56, no. 196,50923-50924.

Pirb. L. 102-579. 1992. Waste Isolation PilotPlant Land Withdrawal Act. (106 Stat. 4777).

Pub. L. 102-486. 1976. Energy Policy Act of1992. (106 Stat. 2776; 42 U.S.C. 13201 etseq.).

Pub. L. 102-386. 1992. Federal Facility

Compliance Act of 1992. (106 Stat. 1505).

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

1993. “Criteria for the Certification ofCompliance with Environmental RadiationProtection Standards for the Management andDisposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and

Transuranic Radioactive Wastes; AdvancedNotice of Proposed Rulemaking,” Federal

Register. Vol. 58, no. 27,8029-8030.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1993. “40 CFR Part 191: Environmental

Radiation Protection Standards for theManagement and Disposal of Spent NuclearFuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive

Wastes, Final Rule,” Federal Register. Vol. 58,no. 242, 66398-66416.

Pub. L. 103-160. 1993. National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. (107

Stat. 1547).


1995. “40 CFR Part 194: Criteria for theCertification and Determination of the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance With

F52

F53

F54

F55

F56

F57

F58

F59

F60

25

Environmental Standards for the Managementand Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level

and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes; ProposedRule;’ Federal Register. Vol. 60, no. 19, 5766-

5791.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1995. “Draft Compliance ApplicationGuidance (CAG) Document; Notice ofAvailability,” Federal Register. Vol. 60, no.

201,53921-53922.


1996. “40 CFR Part 194: Criteria for the

Certification and Re-Certification of the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance With the 40

CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations; FinalRule,” Federal Register. Vol. 61, no. 28, 5224-5245.

Pub. L. 104-201. 1996. National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.

Subtitle F–Waste Isolation Pilot Plant LadWithdrawal Act Amendments. (110 Stat. 285 1).

Nichols, M.D. 1996. “Aspects of the CCARequiring More Documentation forCompleteness and Technical (Particularly

Computer Codes) Concerns Before

Rulemaking.” Recipient: A.L. Aim. Date

12/19/96. Washington, DC: United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Airand Radiation. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#47 192.)

Taugher, M. 1997. “Appeals Court RulesWIPP Criteria Meetings OK,” Albuquerque

.Journal. June 7, 1997. Section D, page 3.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1997. “40 CFR Part 194: Criteria for theCertification and Re-Certification of the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance With the 40CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations:

Certification Decision; Proposed Rule,” Federal

Register. Vol. 62, no. 210,58792-58838.

Taugher, M. 1997. “Agency Finds Disputed

WIPP Safe to Open,” Albuquerque Journal.

October 24, 1997. Section A, page 1.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). I1998. “40 CFR Part 194: Criteria for theCertification and Re-Certification of the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance With the 40

cm Part 191 Disposal Regulations:

Certification Decision; F~nal Rule,” Federal

Register. Vol. 63, no. 95,27354-27406.

Anonymous. 1999. “Court Tosses PetitionAgainst WIPP Llcense~’ Albuquerque .foumal.

July 2, 1999, Section B, p. 1.

References for New Mexico Administration,Regional Issues, and Legal Challenges

N]

N2

N3

N4

N5

N6

N7

N8

N9

Sandia National Laboratories. 1989.

Recollections for Tomorrow. SAND89- 1953.

Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National

Laboratories. 18-19.




August 10-13, 1982. CONF-820845. OakRidge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

17-30.

“Environmental Improvement Act,” New

Mexico Statutes 1978 Annotated (1993 Repl,).

Vol. 13, Chapter 74, Article 1, Sections 74-1-1through 74-1-10. Charlottesville, VA: TheMichie Company. (Copy on file in the SWCFas WPO#47578.)


Washington, DC: Resources for the Future,Inc.; [Baltimore, MD]: Distributed by JohnsHopkins University Press. 64-69,86, 177.

“Hazardous Waste Act,” New Mexico Statutes

1978 Annotated (1993 RepZ.). Vol. 14, Chapter74, Article 4, Sections 74-4-1 through 74-4-14.Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.(Copy on file in the SWCF as WPO#47585.)

“Article 4A Radioactive Materials,” NewMexico Statutes 1978 Annotaled (1993 Repl. ).Vol. 13, Chapter 74, Article 4A, Sections 74-

4A- 1 through 74-4A-19. Charlottesville, VA:The Michie Company. (Copy on file in theSWCF as WPO#47586.)

SRIC (Southwest Research and InformationCenter, Inc.). 1981. “Nuclear Waste Disposal,”The Workbook. Vol. W, no. 2, 44. (Copy on

file in the SWCF as WPO#47565.)

State of New Mexico, ex rel., Jeff Bingaman,Attorney General of the State of New Mexico,Plaintiff, v. The United States Department ofEnergy, et al., Defendants. 1981. “StipulatedAgreement. ” Civil Action No. 81-0363 JB.(United States District Court for the District ofNew Mexico). July 1, 1981. (Copy on file in the

SWCF as WPO#42008.)

SRIC (Southwest Research and Information

Center, Inc.), Peter Montague; Michael

Rutherford; Bill Pierce; and June Naylor,Plaintiffs, v. United States Department ofEnergy; James Edwards, Secretary of the UnitedStates Department of Energy; United StatesDepartment of lnterio~ United States Bureau of

I

N1O

Nll

N12

N13

N14

N15

N16

Land Management; and Robert F. Burford,Director of the Bureau of Land Management,

Defendants. Civil No. 81 -0537-JB. UnitedStates District Court, District of New Mexico.

Action filed July 10, 1981. Judgment rendered

October 1, 1984, by U.S. District Judge Juan C.Burciaga. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPCM47567.)

Documents Related to State of New Mexico v.

U.S. Department of Energy Including theSupplemental Stipulated Agreement Resolving

Certain State Off-Site Concerns Over WIPP andthe Opinion of the General Counsel of the

Department of Energy on Application of thePrice-Anderson Act to the Waste Isolation PilotPlant. 1982. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#48652.)

Neill, R. H., J.K. Channell, L. Chaturvedi, M.S.Little, K. Rehfeldt, and P. Spiegler. 1983.Evaluation of the Suitability of the WIPP Site.

EEG-23. Santa Fe, NM: EnvironmentalEvaluation Group, Environmental ImprovementDivision.

Neill, R. H., and J.K. Channell, 1983. PotentialProblems from Shipment of High-Curie Content

Contact-Handled Transuranic (CH-TRU) Waste

to WIPP. EEG-24. Santa Fe, NM: New MexicoHealth and Environment Department,Environmental Evaluation Group.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1985. “40 CFR Part 271: New Mexico;

Decision on Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management Program: Noticeof Final Determination on New Mexico’sApplication for Final Authorization,” Federal

Register. Vol. 50, no. 8, 1515-1516.

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.) v. United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, et al. 1987.824 Federal Reporter, 2d

Series 1258. NOS. 85-1915, 86-1096 to 86-1098. United States Court of Appeals, First

Circuit. July 17, 1987. As Amended August12, 1987. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#43240.)

Channel], J.K., J.C. Rodgers, and R.H. Neill.1986. Adequacy of TRUPACT-I Design for

Transporting Contact-Handled Transuranic

Wastes to WIPP. EEG-33. Santa Fe, NM: New

Mexico Health and Environment Department,Environmental Evahration Group.

Begley, S., and M. Miller. 1987. “A NuclearDump Springs a Leak,” Newsweek. VO1. 110,no. 26, 65.

26

N17 Cummings, R.G. 1988. New Mexico Waste

Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP): An Historical

Overview. DOE/NVll 0461-T15. Albuquerque,NM: University of New Mexico for State ofNevada, Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear

Waste Project Office. 9-11. (Copy on file in theSWCFas WPO#47158.)

NI 8 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

1990. “40 CFR Part 271: State of New Mexico:Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste

Management Program; Final Rule,” Federal

Register. Vol. 55, no. 133,28397-28398.

N19 State of New Mexico, ex rel., Tom Udall,

Attorney General, Plaintiff, Natural ResourcesDefense Council, et al., and State of Texas, exrel., Dan Morales, Attorney General, Plaintiffs-

Intervenors, v. James D. Watkins, Secretary ofthe Department of Energy, et al., Defendants.

Environmental Defense Fund, et al., Plaintiffs,v. James D. Watkins, Secretary of theDepartment of Energy, et al., Defendants. Civ.

A. Nos. 91-2527, 91-2929. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia. December

13, 1991.783 Federal Supplement 628.

N20 State of New Mexico, ex rel., Tom Udall,Attorney General, Plaintiffs, Natural ResourcesDefense Council, et al., and State of Texas, exrel., Dan Morales, Attorney General, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. James D. Watkins, Secretary of

Energy, et al., Defendants. v. James D. Watkins,Secretary of the Department of Energy, et al.,

Defendants. Civ. A. No. 91-2527, 91-2929.United States District Court, District ofColumbia. February 3, 1992. 783 Federal

Supplement 633.

N21 McCutcheon, C. 1993. “WIPP Staff Won’t

Move to Cark.bad,” Albuquerque Journal. June

11, 1993. Section D, page 3.

N22 Welch, B. 1993. “Local Group to Meet EnergySecretary over WIPP Standstill~’ Carlsbad

Current-Argus. August 23, 1993. Section A,

pages 1, 2.

N23 NMED (New Mexico Environment

Department). 1993. Resource Conservation and

Recove~ Act Draft Hazardous Waste Facility

Permit Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).

EPA I.D. Number NM4890139088. [Santa Fe,NM]: New Mexico Environment Department.Vols. 1-4. (Copy on file at Zimmerman

Government Publications, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque, NM as #E

1.28:DOWWID 93-RCRA/DRAIT.)

N24 Eichstaedt, P. 1996. “Udall: WIPP Unsafe,Lawsuit Alleges EPA Eased Rules,”

Albuquerque Journal. April 9, 1996. Section

C, page 3.

N25 Anonymous. 1999. “Opponents: WIPP MustWait~’ Albuquerque Journal. January 26, 1999,Section D, p. 1.

N26 Ferry, B. 1999. “Hearings on WIPP PermitStart Monday,” Santa Fe New Mexican.

February 18, 1999, Section B, p. 1.

N27 Anonymous. 1999. “State Withdraws fromSuit Over EPA Certification of WIPP,” Las

Cruces Sun-News. May 6, 1999, Section A,p. 5.

N28 Parker-Stevens, V. 1999. “WIPP Gets

Hazardous Waste Permit from State,” CarlsbadCurrent-Argus. October 28, 1999, Section A,pp. 1,8.

27

References for Technical Milestones Related to theWIPP

T]

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

T7

T8

T9

AEC (Atomic Energy Commission). 1948.

Report of the Safety and Industrial Health

Advisory Board. April 2, 1948. Washington,DC: United States Atomic Energy Commission.

Hacker, B.C. 1987. The Dragon’s Tail:

Radiation Safety in the Manha~tan Projectj

1942-1946. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press. 4,5, 69-73


Sciences/National Research Council). 1957.

The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land:

Report of the Committee on Waste Disposal of

the Division of Earth Sciences. Publication 519.Washington, DC: National Academy of

Sciences/National Research Council. (Copy onfile in the SWCFas WPO#41159.)

U.S. Congress. 1970. “National Academy ofSciences-National Research Council,”

Congressional Record. Vol. 116, pt. 10, 13570-13589.

Mongan, T.R., S.R. Ripple, G.P. Brorby, andDC. diTommaso. 1996. “Plutonium Releasesfrom the 1957 Fire at Rocky Flats,” Health

Physics. Vol. 71, no. 4,510-521.


Sciences/National Research Council). 1959.

Radioactive Waste Disposal into Atlantic and

Gulf Coastal Waters. Publication 655.Washington, DC: Working Group of tbe

Committee on Oceanography of the NationalAcademy of Sciences - National Research

Council. (Copy on file in the SWCF aswPo#47431 .)

Claibome, H.C., and F. Gera. 1974. PotentialContainment Failure Mechanisms and Their

Consequences at a Radioactive WasteRepository in Bedded Salt in New Mexico.

0RNL-TM-4639. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak RidgeNational Laboratory. (Copy on file in theSWCF as WPO#41224.)

Gard, L.M. 1968. Geologic Studies, Project

Gnome, Eddy County, New Mexico. GeologicalSurvey Professional Paper 589. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of the Interior[Geological Survey; For Sale by theSuperintendent of Documents], Us.

Government Printing Office. (Copy on file inthe SWCF as WPO#48945.

Pierce, W. G., and E.I. Rich. 1962. Summary ofRock Salt Deposits in (he United States as

Possible Storage Sites for Radioactive Waste

TIO

Tll

T12

T13

T14

T15

T16

T17

28

Materials. Geological Survey Bulletin 1148.

Washington, DC: Geological Survey. (Copy onfile in the SWCF as WPO#48688.)

Bradshaw, R.L., and W.C. McC1ain, eds. 1971.

Project Salt Vault: A Demonstration of the

Disposal of High-Activity Solidified Wastes in

Underground Salt Mines. ORNL-4555. OakRidge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

(Copy on file in the SWCF as WPO#48808.)

McClain, W. C., and R.L. Bradshaw. 1970.

“Status of Investigations of Salt Formations forDisposal of Highly Radioactive Power-Reactor

Wastes,” Nuclear Safety. Vol. 11, no. 2, 130-141.

Teller, E. 1959. “The Plowshare Program,”

Proceedings of the Second Plowshare

Symposium, San Francisco, CA, May 13-15,

1959. UCRL-5675. Livermore, CA:Livermore Radiation Laboratory. 8-13. (Copyon file in the SWCF as WPO#44080.)

Wheeler, B.R., B.R. Dickey, G.E. Lohse, D.E.Black, D.W. Rhodes, and J.A. Buckham. 1967.“Storage of Radioactive Solids in UndergroundFacilities: Current ICPP Practices and FutureConcepts,” Disposal of Radioactive Wastes into

the Ground, Proceedings of a Symposium

Jointly Organized by the International Atomic

Energy Agency and the European NuclearEnergy Agency of the OECD, Vienna, Austria,

May 29-June 2, 1967. Vienna: InternationalAtomic Energy Agency. 421-440, (Copy ontile in tbe SWCF as WPO#48156.)

Boffey, P.M. 1975. “Radioactive WasteDisposal: The Atomic Energy CommissionBrings the Academy to Heel,” The Brain Bankof America: An Inquiry into the Politics of

Science. P.M. Boffey. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill Book Company. 89-111, 276-

278.


Washington, DC: Resources for the Future,Inc.; [Baltimore, MD]: Distributed by JohnsHopkins University Press. 64-69, 86, 177.

U.S. Congress. 1970. “Radioactive Waste

Management: An Interim Report of the

Committee on Radioactive Waste

Management,” Congressional Record. Vol. 116,pt. 10, 13592-13593.

Davies, L.E. 1969. “Fire Cleanup KeepsPlutonium Plant Busy,” New York Times. June27, 1969, p. 10.

T18

T19

T20

T21

T22

T23

T24

T25



Management Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD,August 10-13, 1982. CONF-820845. Oak


NAS/NRC (National Academy ofSciences/National Research Council). 1970.

Disposal of Solid Radioactive Wastes in Bedded

Salt Deposits. Washington, DC: Committee onRadioactive Waste Management, National

Academy of Sciences/National Research

Council; U.S. Government Printing Office.(Copy on file in the SWCFas WPO#43139.)

Cooper, J.B., and J.M. Glanzman. 1971.

Geohydrology of Project Gnome Site, Eddy

County, New Mexico. Geological SurveyProfessional Paper 712-A. Washington, DC:United States Government Printing Office.

Brokaw, A. L., C.L. Jones, M.E. Cooley, andW.H. Hays. 1972. Geology and Hydrology of

the Carlsbad Potash Area, Eddy and Lea

Counties, New Mexico. Open-file report USGS-4339-1. Denver, CO: United States Departmentof the Interior, Geological Survey. (Copy onfile in the SWCF as WPO#43356.)

Anderson, R.E., D.H. Eargle, and B.O. Davis.1973. Geologic and Hydrologic Summary of

Salt Domes in Guy Coast Region of Texas,Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Open-tilereport USGS-4339-2. Denver, CO: UnitedStates Department of the Interior, GeologicalSurvey. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#43862.)

Mytton, J.W. 1973. Two Salt Structures in

Arizona: The Supai Salt Basin and the Luke Salt

Body. Open-file report USGS-4339-3. Denver,

CO: United States Department of the Interior,Geological Survey. (Copy on file in the SWCFas WPO#4869 1.)

Bachman, G. O., R.B. Johnson, and F.A.

Swenson. 1973. Stabili~ of Salt in the

Permian Salt Basin of Kansas, Oklahoma,

Texas, and New Mexico, With a Section on

Dissolved Salts in Sroface Water. Open-filereport USGS-4339-4. Denver, CO: UnitedStates Department of the Interior, Geological

Survey. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#41 298.)

Merewether, E. A., J.A. Sharps, J.R. Gill, andM.E. Cooley. 1973. Shale, Mudstone, and

Claystone as Potential Host Rocks forUnderground Emplacement of Waste. Open-filereport USGS-4339-5. Denver, CO: United

29

T26

T27

T28

T29

T30

T3 I

T32

T33

States Department of the Interior, Geological

Survey. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#48204.)

Hite, R. J., and S.W. Lehman. 1973. GeologicAppraisal of Paradox Basin Salt Deposits for

Waste Emplacement. Open-file report USGS-

4339-6. Denver, CO: United States Department

of the Interior, Geological Survey. (Copy onfile in the SWCF as WPO#48650.)

Jones, C. L., M.E. Cooley, and G.O. Bachman.1973. Salt Deposits of Los Medaiios Area,

Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico, With

Sections on Ground Water Hydrology. Open-

file report USGS-4339-7. Denver, CO: UnitedStates Department of the Interior, GeologicalSurvey. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#43835.)

Bachman, G.O. 1973. Surficial Features and

Late Cenozoic History in Southeastern New

Mexico. Open-file report USGS-4339-8.Denver, CO: United States Department of theInterior, Geological Survey. (Copy on file inthe SWCFas WPO#41293.)

Barnes, H. 1974. “Geologic and HydrologicBackground for Selecting Site of Pilot-plantRepository for Radioactive Waste;’ Bulletin of

the Association of Engineering Geologists. Vol.XI, no. 1, 83-92.

NAS/NRC (National Academy ofSciences/National Research Council). 1984.Review of the Scientific and Technical Criteria

for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).Panel on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Board

on Radioactive Waste Management,Commission on Physical Sciences,Mathematics, and Resources, National ResearchCouncil. DOE/DP/48015- 1. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Rechard, R.P., ed. 1992. User’s Reference

Manual for CAMCON: Compliance AssessmentMethodology Controller, Version 3.0.SAND90- 1983. Albuquerque, NM: SandiaNational Laboratories.

Rasmussen, N.C. 1975. Reactor Safety Study:

An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S.

Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-

75/014, WASH-1400. Washington, DC: U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (Availablefrom the NTIS as PB-248 200-Set.)

Sandia National Laboratories and U.S.Geological Survey. 1983. Basic Data Report

for Drillhoie ERDA 6 (Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant - WIPP). SAND79-0267. Albuquerque,NM: Srmdia National Laboratories.

T34

T35

T36

T37

T38

T39

T40

T41

T42

T43

Powers, D.W., S.J. Lambert, S-E. Shaffer, L.R.Hill, and W.D. Weart, eds. 1978. Geological

Characterization Report, Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant (WIPP) Site, Southeastern New Mexico.

SAND78- 1596. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia

[National] Laboratories. Vols. I-II.

Gulick, C.W., Jr. 1978. Borehole Plugging-Materials Development Program. SAND78-

0715. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National

Laboratories.

Barr, G. E., and P.D. O’Brien. 1976. “SelectiveAdsorption of Radionuclides in Geologic

Storage MediA Disclosure of Potentially

Patentable Subject.” Unpublished

Memorandum from G.C. Newlin to W .D.Weart, March 11, 1976. Albuquerque, NM:Sandia National Laboratories. (Copy on file inthe SWCFas ERMS#500136.)

Dawson, P.R., and J.R. Tillerson. 1978.

Nuclear Waste Canister Thermally InducedMotion. SAND78-0566. Albuquerque, NM:

Sandia National Laboratories.

Molecke, M.A. 1978. Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant Transuranic Wastes Experimental

Characterization Program: Executive

Summary. SAND78-1 356. Albuquerque, NM:Sandla [National] Laboratories.

Sandia [National] Laboratories. 1979.

Summary of Research and DevelopmentActivities in Support of Waste Acceptance

Criteria for WIPP. Comp. T.O. Hunter.SAND79-1 305. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia

[National] Laboratories.

Sandia [National] Laboratories. 1977. Waste

isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) ConceptualDesign Report. SAND77-0274. Albuquerque,NM: Sandia [National] Laboratories.

Gulick, C.W., Jr. 1979. Borehole PluggingProgram, Plugging of ERDA No. 10 Drill Hole.

SAND79-0789. Albuquerque, NM: SandiaNational Laboratories.

Tyler, L. D., R.V. Matalucci, M.A. Molecke,

D.E. Munson, E.J. Nowak, and J.C. Stormont.1988. Summary Report for the WIPP

Technology Development Program for Isolation

of Radioactive Waste. SAND88-0844.


Laboratories.

Smith, T. 1982. “Risk and Safety Analyses forDisposal of Alpha-Contaminated Waste inINEL,” Proceedings of Alpha-Contaminated

Waste Management Workshop, Gaithersburg,

MD, August 10-13, 1982. CONF-820845. Oak


T44 Lamoreaux, G. H., L.E. Romesberg, S.H.Sutherland, and T.A. Duffey. 1980. “Contact-Handled Transuranic Transportation SystemStructural Analysis (TRUPACT),” Patram 80,

6th International Symposium on Packaging andTransporting Radioactive Materials, Berlin,

Germany, November 10-14, 1980. Ed. H.W.Hubner. Berlin: Bundesanst fur Materialpriif

(BAM). Vol. 2,1214-1221.

T45 May, R. A., L.E. Romesberg, H.R. Yoshimura,W.E. Baker, and J.C. Hokanson. 1980.

“Analytical and Empirical Evaluation of Low-Level Waste Drum Response to Accident

Environments,” Patram 80, 6th International

Symposium on Packaging and Transporting

Radioactive Materials, Berlin, Germany,

November 10-14, 1980. Ed. H.W. Hiitmer.Berlin: Bundesanst fiir MateriaIprtif (BAM).Vol. 2, 1321-1328.

T46 Romesberg, L. E., S.H. Sutherland, G.H.

Lamoreaux, and R.G. Eakes. 1981. “Design ofPackaging for Transporting Transuranic

Contaminated Wastes,” Damage Prevention in

the Transportation Environment, Proceedings

of the 34th Meeting of the Mechanical Failures

Prevention Group, National Bureau ofStandards, Gaithersburg, MD, October 21-23,

1981. Ed. T.R. Shives. NBS Special Publication652; SAND81 -1 308C. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Commerce, National Bureau ofStandards; Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National

Laboratories. 16 pp.

T47 Kosiewicz, S.T., B.L. Barraclough, and A.Zerwekh. 1980. Studies of Transuranic Waste

Storage Under Conditions Expected in theWaste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), Inlerim

Summary Report, October 1, 1977-June 15,

1979. LA-793 1-PR. Los Alamos, NM: LosAlamos Scientific Laboratory. (Copy on file inthe SWCF as WPO#488 13.)

T48 Lappin, A.R., R.L. Hunter, D.P. Garber, andP.B. Davies, eds. 1989. Systems Analysis,

Long-Term Radionuclide Transport, and Dose

Assessments, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

(WIPP), Southeastern New Mexico; March

1989. SAND89-0462. Albuquerque, NM:


T49 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1979.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant. DOE/EIS-O026-D.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.Vols. 1-2.

30

T50

T51

T52

T53

T54

T55

T56

T57

T58

Campbell, J.E., R.T. Dillon, M.S. Tiemey, H.T.Davis, P.E. McGrath, F.J. Pearson, Jr., H.R.

Shaw, J.C. Helton, and F.A. Donath. 1978.Risk Methodology for Geologic Disposal of

Radioactive Waste: InterimReport. SAND78-

0029, NUREG/CR-0458. Albuquerque, NM:


Cranwell, R. M., J.E. Campbell, J.C. Helton,R.L. Iman, D.E. Longsine, N.R. Ortiz, G.E.Runkle, and M.J. Shortencarier. 1987. Risk

Methodology for Geologic Disposal of

Radioactive Waste: Final Report. SAND81 -

2573, NUREG/CR-2452. Albuquerque, NM:


Hunter, T.O. 1979. “Technical Issues of

Nuclear Waste Isolation in the Waste IsolationPilot Plant (WIPP),” Proceedings, 87t/r

National Meeting of American Institute of

Chemical Engineers, Boston, MA, August 19-

22, 1979. SAND79-111 7C. New York, NY:American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

(Copy on file in the SWCFas WPCM26711.)

Sattler, A. R., and C.L. Christensen. 1980.Measurements of Very Lurge Deformations in

“Potash Salt” in Conjunction With an OngoingMining Operation. SAND79-2254.


Laboratories.

McVey, D.F. 1981. Analysis of Data from Line

Source Thermal Conductivity MeasurementsTaken In Situ in Dome Salt at the Avery Island

Mine. SAND81 -1232. Albuquerque, NM:Sandia National Laboratories.

Ewing, R.I. 1981. WIPP Test of a RadiantHeater in the Avery Island Salt Mine. SAND8 1-

1305. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia NationalLaboratories.

Christensen, C.L., R.D. Statler, and E.W.Peterson. 1980. Downhole Television (DHTV)

Applications in Borehole Plugging. SAND80-


Laboratories.

Bingham, F.W., and G.E. Barr. 1980.“Development of Scenarios for the Long-Term

Release of Radionuclides from the ProposedWaste Isolation Pilot Plant in Southeastern New

Mexico,” Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste

Management, Proceedings of the International

Symposium, Boston, MA, November 27-30,

1979. Ed. C.J.M. Northrup, Jr. SAND79-

0955C. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Vol. 2,771-778.

Bartlett, J.W., H.C. Burkholder, and W.K.Winegardner. 1977. “Safety Assessment of

31

T59

T60

T61

T62

T63

T64

T65

T66

Geologic Repositories for Nuclear Waste,”Nuclear Systems Reliability Engineering and

Risk Assessment. Eds. J.B. Fussell and G.R.Burdick. Philadelphia, PA: Society for

Industrial and Applied Mathematics. 636-660.

(Copy on file in SWCF as WPO#45677.)

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1980.

W[PP SAR: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Safety

Analysis Report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Energy. Vols. 1-5.

Molecke, M. A., and T.M. Tomes. 1984. “The

Waste Package Materials Field Test in S.E.New Mexico Salt,” Scientftc Basis for Nuclear

Waste Management VII, Materials Research

Socie~ Symposia Proceedings, Boston, MA,

November 14-17, 1983. Ed. G.L. McVay.

SAND83-I516C. New York, NY: North-

Holland. Vo]. 26,69-76.

Bechtel National, Inc. 1986. WIPP DesignValidation Final Report. DOE/WIPP-86-O 10.

San Francisco, CA: Bechtel National, Inc.


Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal PhaseFinal Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement. September 1997. DOE/EIS-O026-S-2. Carlsbad, NM: Department of Energy,Carlsbad Area Office.

State of New Mexico, ex rel., Jeff Bingaman,Attorney General of the State of New Mexico,Plaintiff, v. The United States Department of

Energy, et al., Defendants. 1981. “StipulatedAgreement.” Civil Action No. 81-0363 JB.

United States District Court for the District ofNew Mexico, July 1, 1981. (Copy on file in theSWCF as WPO#42008.)

Popielak, R. S., R.L. Beauheim, S.R. Black,

W.E. Coons, C.T. Ellingson, and R.L. Olsen.

1983. Brine Reservoirs in the Castile

Formation, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

Project, Southeastern New Mexico. TME 3153.Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Energy,Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. (Copy on file in the

SWCF as WPO#42085.)

Campbell, J.E., and R.M. Cranwell. 1988.

“Performance Assessment of Radioactive WasteRepositories,” Science. Vol. 239, no. 4846,

1389-1392.

Campbell, J.E., C.D. Leigh, and D.E. Longsine.1991. NEFTRAN-S: A Network Flow and

Contaminant Transport Model for Statistical

and Deterministic Simulations Using Personal

Computers. SAND90- 1987. Albuquerque,

NM: Sandia National Laboratories.

T67 IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).

1981. Safety Assessment for the Underground

Disposal of Radioactive Wastes. Safety SeriesNo. 56. Vienna, Austria: International AtomicEnergy Agency.

T68 Matalucci, R.V., C.L. Christensen, T.O. Hunter,

M.A. Molecke, and D.E. Munson. 1982. Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Research and

Development Program: In Situ Testing Plan,

March 1982. SAND81-2628. Albuquerque,NM: Sandia National Laboratories.

T69 Lambert, S.J. 1983. Dissolution of Evaporates

In and Around the Delaware Basin,

Southeastern New Mexico and West Texas.


T70 Snyder, R.P., L.M. Card, Jr., and J.W. Mercer.1982. Evaluation of Breccia Pipes in

Southeastern New Mexico and Their Relation tothe Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site,

with a Section on Dn”ll-Stem Tests, WIPP 31.Open-File Report 82-968. Denver, CO:

Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey for theAlbuquerque Operations Office, Us.

Department of Energy.

T71 Mercer, J.W. 1983. Geohydro[ogy of the

Proposed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site, LosMedatios Area, Southeastern New Mexico.

Open-File Report 83-4016. Albuquerque, NM:U.S. Geological Survey.

T72 Gonzalez, D.D. 1983. Groundwater Flow in

the Rustler Formation, Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant (WIPP), Southeast New Mexico (SENM):

Interim Report. SAND82- 1012. Albuquerque,NM: Sandia National Laboratories.

T73 Bores, D.J., L.J. Barrows, D.W. Powers, andR.P. Snyder. 1983. Deformation of EvaporatesNear the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

Site. SAND82-1069. Albuquerque, NM:


T74 Earth Technology Corporation. 1988. Final

Report for Time Domain Electromagnetic

(TDEM) Surveys at the WIPP Site. H. Ciine andM. Blohm. SAND87-7144. Albuquerque, NM:Sandia National Laboratories.

T75 Beauheim, R. L., B.W. Hassinger, and J,A.Klaiber. 1983. Basic Data Report for Boreho[e

Cabin Baby-1 Deepening and HydrologicTesting, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

Project, Southeastern New Mexico. WTSD-TME-020. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Departmentof Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

32

T76 Lappin, A.R. 1988. Summary of Site-

Characterization Studies Conducted From 1983

Through 1987 at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

(WIPP) Site, Southeastern New Mexico.

SAND88-0157. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia

National Laboratories.

T77 Lynch, R. W., R.L. Hunter, D.R. Anderson,F.W. Bingham, J.M. Covan, G.F. Hohnstrieter,

T.O. Hunter, R.D. Klett, E.E. Ryder, T.L.

Sanders, and W.D. Weart. 1991. Deep

Geologic Disposal in the United States: The

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and Yucca

Mountain Projects. SAND90-1656,


Laboratories.

T78 Nowak, E.J. 1986. “Brine Migration Studies inthe Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP),” Waste

Management ’86- Waste Isolation in the U.S.,

Technical Programs and Public Education,

Proceedings of the Symposium on WasteManagement, Tucson, AZ, March 2-6, 1986.

Ed. R.G. Post. SAND85-1987C. Tucson, AZ:University of Arizona. Vol. 2, 153-158.

T79 Beauheim, R.L. 1986. Hydraulic-Test

Interpretations for Well DOE-2 at the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site. SAND86-


Laboratories.

T80 NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1994.“Part 71–Packaging and Transportation of

Radioactive Material,” Code of Federal

Regulations 10, Part 71. Washington, DC:Superintendent of Documents, U. S..

Government Printing Office.

T81 Morgan, H. S., C.M. Stone, and R.D. Krieg.

1985. “The Use of Field Data to Evaluate andImprove Drift Response Models for the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant (WIPP),” Research and

Engineering Applications in Rock Masses,Proceedings of the 26th U.S. Symposium onRock Mechanics, Rapid City, SD, June 26-28,

1985. Ed. E. Ashworth. Boston, MA: A.A.Balkema. Vol. 2, 769-776.

T82 Morgan, H. S., C.M. Stone, and R.D. Krieg.1986. An Evaluation of WIPP Structural

Modeling Capabilities Based on Comparisons

with South Drft Data. SAND85-0323.


Laboratories.

T83 Romesberg, L. E., and M.L. Hudson. 1986.

“Impact, Puncture and Thermal Testing ofTRUPACT-1 ,“ Proceedings of an International

Symposium on the Packaging and

Transportation of Radioactive Materials

T84

T85

T86

TS7

T88

T89

T90

T91

(PA TRAM ‘86), Davos, Switzerland, June 16-

20, 1986. SAND84-2067C, IAEA-SM-2861107.

Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy

Agency. Vol. 2,511-519.

Romesberg, L. E., R.S. Longenbaugh, and B.J.

Joseph. 1989. Fire Testing and Analysis of

TRUPACT-I Thermal Test Article. SAND86-

2710, TTC-0704. Albuquerque, NM: SandiaNational Laboratories.

Sandoval, R.P., and L.C. Sanchez. 1987.

“TRUPACT Containment Issues,” Proceedings

of an International Symposium on the

Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive

Materials (PA TRAM ‘86), Davos, Switzerland,

June 16-20, 1986. SAND85-2203C. Vienna,Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency.

Vol. 2,719-727.

Warrant, M. M., J.M. Nelsen, and S.W.Woolfolk. 1987. “Containment Analysis ofTRUPACT-1,” Proceedings of an International

Symposium on the Packaging and

Transportation of Radioactive Materials

(PATRAM ‘86), Davos, Switzerland, June 16-

.20, 1986. SAND85-2188C, IAEA-SM-286-11 1P. Vienna, Austria International AtomicEnergy Agency. Vol. 2,529-536.

Beauheim, R.L. 1987. Analysis of Pumping

Tests of the Ctdebra Dolomite Conducted at the

H-3 Hydropad at the Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant (WIPP) Site. SAND86-2311 .Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National

Laboratories.

Haug, A., V.A. Kelley, A.M. LaVenue, and J.F.Pickens. 1987. Modeling of Ground-Water

Flow in the Culebra Dolomite at the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site: Interim

Report. SAND86-7 167. Albuquerque, NM:Sandia National Laboratories.

Reeves, M., V.A. Kelley, and J.F. Pickens.1987. Regional Double-Porosity SoluteTransport in the Culebra Dolomite: An Analysis

of Parameter Sensitivity and Importance at the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site.


Nowak, E. J., D.F. McTigue, and R. Beratin.1988. Brine Injlow to WIPP Disposal Rooms:

Data, Modeling, and Assessment. SAND88-


Laboratories.

Rechard, R.P. 1991. “CAMCON: ComputerSystem for Assessing Regulatory Compliance

of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,” Proceedingsof the International Conference on Probabilistic

T92

T93

T94

T95

T96

T97

T98

T99

Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM),

Beverly Hills, CA, February 4-7, 1991. Ed. G.

Apostolakis. SAND90-2094C. New York,

NY: Elsevier Science Publishers. Vol. 2, 899-

904.

Rechard, R.P. 1989. Review and Discussion of

Code Linkage and Data Flow in Nuclear Waste

Compliance Assessments. SAND87-2833.


Laboratories.

Beauheim, R.L. 1989. Interpretation of the H-

Ilb4 Hydraulic Tests and the H-II Multipad

Pumping Test of the Ctdebra Dolomite at the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site.

SAND89-0536. Albuquerque, NM: SandiaNationaJ Laboratories.

LaVenue, A. M., A. Haug, and V.A. Kelley.1988. Numerical Simulation of Ground-Water

Flow in the Culebra Dolomite at the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site: SecondInterim Report. SAND88-7002. Albuquerque,NM: Sandia National Laboratories.

LaVenue, A. M., T.L. Cauffman, and J.F.Pickens. 1990. Ground-Water Modeling of the

Crdebra Dolomite. Volume I: Model

Calibration. SAND89-7068/l. Albuquerque,NM: Sandia National Laboratones.

Beauheim, R. L., T.F. Dale, and J.F. Pickens.1991. Interpretations of Single-Well Hydraulic

Tests of the Rustler Formation Conducted in the

Vicinity of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site,

1988-1989. SAND89-0869. Albuquerque,


Nuclear Packaging, Inc. 1989. Safety Analysis

Report for the TRUPACT-11 Shipping Package,

Rev. 4. SROO045. Washington, DC: NuclearPackaging, Inc. Vols. 1-5. (Copy on file in theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PublicDocument Room, Washington, DC, 1-800-397-

4209.)

Jensen, A.L., C.L. Howard, R.L. Jones, and T.P.

Peterson. 1993. Room Q Data Report: TestBorehole Data From April 1989 ThroughNovember 1991. SAND92-1 172.


Laboratories.

Munson, D.E., A.F. Fossum, and P.E. Senseny.1989. Advances in Resolution of Discrepancies

Between Predicted and Measured In Situ WIPP

Room Closures. SAND88-2948. Albuquerque,NM: Sandia NationaI Laboratories.


“Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; Availability of

33

T101

Draft Supplement to the Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement,” Federal Register. Vol. 54,

no. 76, 16350-16352.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1989.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant No-Migration

Variance Petition. DOEIWIPP 89-003, Rev. O.

Carlsbad, NM: Westinghouse Electric

Corporation, Waste Isolation Division.

T102 Brush, L.H. 1990. Test Plan for Laboratory

and Modeling Studies of Reposito~ and

Radionuclide Chemistry for the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant. SAND90-0266. Albuquerque,


T103 Brush, L. H., D. Grbic-Galic, D.T. Reed, X.

T104

T105

1ong, K.H. Vreelanct, anct K.E. Westerman.1991. “Preliminary Results of Laboratory

Studies of Repository Chemistry for the WasteIsolation Pilot Plant,” Scientific Basis forNuclear Waste Management XIV, MaterialsResearch Society Symposium Proceedings,

Boston, MA, November 26-29, 1990. Eds. T.A.Abrajano, Jr. and L.H. Johnson. SAND90-

1031 C. Pittsburgh, PA: Materials ResearchSociety. Vol. 212,893-900.

Brush, L. H., M.A. Molecke, A.R. Lappin, R.E.Westerman, X. Tong, J.N.P. Black, D. Grbic-Galic, R.E. Vreeland, and D.T. Reed. 1991.“Laboratory and Bin-Scale Tests of GasGeneration for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;’Waste-Generated Gas at the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant, Papers Presented at the Nuclear

Energy Agency Workshop on Gas Generation

and Release from Radioactive Waste

Repositories. Eds. P.B. Davies, L.H. Brush,M.A. Molecke, F.T. Mendenhall, and S.W.

Webb. SAND91 -2378. Albuquerque, NM:Sandia National Laboratories. 2-1 through 2-

13.

Reed, D.T., S. Okajima, L.H. Brush, and M.A.Molecke. 1993. “Radiolytically -Induced Gas

Production in Plutonium-Spiked WIPP Brine,”

Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste ManagementXVI, Materials Research Society Symposium

Proceedings, Boston, MA, November 30-December 4, 1992. Eds. C.G. Interrante and

R.T. Pabalan. SAND92-7283C. Pittsburgh,

PA: Materials Research Society. Vol. 294,431-438.

T106 Telander, M. R., and R.E. Westerman. 1993.Hydrogen Generation by Metal Corrosion in

Simulated Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Environments: Progress Report for the PeriodNovember 1989 through December 1992.



34

T107 Francis, A. J., and J.B. Gillow. 1994. Effects of

Microbial Processes on Gas Generation Under

T108

T109

TIIO

Till

T112

Expected Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Reposito~

Conditions, Progress Report Through 1992.




Draft Supplement, Environmental Impact

Statement, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

DOE/EIS-0026-DS. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for

Defense Programs. Vols. 1-2. (Copy on file inthe SWCFas WPO#43133.)

Hunter, R.L. 1989. Events and Processes for

Constructing Scenarios for the Release of

Transuranic Waste from the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant, Southeastern New Mexico.



Marietta, M. G., S.G. Bertram-Howery, D.R.Anderson, K.F. Brinster, R.V. Guzowski, H.Iuzzolino, and R.P. Rechard. 1989.

Pe~ormance Assessment Methodology

Demonstration: Methodology Development for

Evaluating Compliance With EPA 40 CFR 191,

Subpart B, for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.



Bertram-Howery, S.G., M.G. Marietta, D.R.

Anderson, K.F. Brinster, L.S. Gomez, R.V.Guzowski, and R.P. Rechard. 1989. Draft

Forecast of the Final Report for the

Comparison to 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B, forthe Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. sAND88-

1452. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia Nationat

Laboratories.


WIPP Test Phase Plan: Performance

Assessment. DOE/WIPP 89-011, Revision O.Carlsbad, NM: United States Department ofEnergy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.


Final Safety Analysis Report, Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant, Carlsbad, New Mexico. WP 02-9,Rev. O. Cadsbad, NM: Westinghouse EIectricCorporation. Vols. 1-8. (Copy on file in the

SWCF as WPCM43327.)

T114 Guzowski, R.V. 1990. Preliminary

Identrj?cation of Scenarios That May Affect the

Escape and Transport of Radionuclides From

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, SoutheasternNew Mexico. SAND89-7 149. Albuquerque,


T115

T116

T117

Rechard, R. P., H.J. Iuzzolino, J.S. Rath, A.P.

Gilkey, R.D. McCurley, and D.K. Rudeen.

1989. User’s Manual for CAMCON:

Compliance Assessment Methodology

Controller. SAND88-1496. Albuquerque, NM:Sandia National Laboratories.

Bertram-Howery, S.G., M.G. Marietta, R.P.Rechrrrd, P.N. Swift, D.R. Anderson, B.L.Baker, J.E. Bean, Jr., W. Beyeler, K.F. Brinster,

R.V. Guzowski, J.C. Helton, R.D. McCurley,D.K. Rudeen, J.D. Schreiber, and P. Vaughn.1990. Preliminary Comparison with 40 CFR

Part 191, Subpart B for the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant, December 1990. SAND90-2347.


Laboratories.

Rechard, R.P., W. Beyeler, R.D. McCurley,D.K. Rudeen, J.E. Bean, and J.D. Schreiber.

1990. Parameter Sensitivity Studies of Selected

Components of the Waste Isolation Pilot PlantRepository/Shaft System. SAND89-2030.

Albuquerque, NM: Sandia NationalLaboratories.


Resource Conservation and Recove~ Act PartB Permit Application. DOE/WIPP 91-005,Revision 1.0. Cark.bad, NM: Waste IsolationPilot Plant. Vols. I-VII.

T119 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1991.Report of the Geotechnical Panel on the

Effective Life of Rooms in Panel 1. DOEAWPP91-023. Carlsbad, NM: WestinghouseElectrical Corporation, Waste IsolationDivision.


T121

WIPP Supplementary Roof Support System

Room 1, Panel 1 Geotechnical Field Data

Analysis Bi-Annual Report. DOEAWPP 92-024. Carlsbad, NM: Westinghouse ElectricalCorporation, Waste Isolation Division.

WIPP PA (Performance Assessment) Division.

1991-1992. Preliminary Comparison with 40

CFR Part 191, Subpart B for the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant, December ]991.SAND91 -0893/1/2/3. Albuquerque, NM:

Sandia National Laboratories. Vols. 1-3.

T122 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1993. Test

Phase Plan for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

DOE/WIPP 89-011, Revision 1. Albuquerque,NM: U.S. Department of Energy, WIPP ProjectIntegration Office.


Waste Retrieval Plan for the Waste Isolation

35

T124

Pilot Plant. DOE/lVIPP-89-022, Revision 1.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

NRC (National Research Council). 1992. A

Letter Report by the Panel on the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant, Board on Radioactive

Waste Management. Washington, DC:

Commission on Geosciences, Environment, andResources, National Research Council. (Copy

on tile in the SWCF as WPW35203-35204.)

Tl 25 WIPP PA (Performance Assessment)

Department. 1992-1993. Prelimina~

Pe~omrance Assessment for the Waste IsolationPilot Plant, December 1992. SAND92-

070011/2/314/5. Albuquerque, NM: SandiaNational Laboratories. Vols. 1-5.

TI 26 Francis, A. J., J.B. Gillow, and M.R. Giles.1997. Microbial Gas Generation Under

Expected Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Repository

Conditions. SAND96-2582. Albuquerque,


T127 Telander, M. R., and R.E. Westerman. 1997.Hydrogen Generation by Metal Corrosion in

Simulated Waste Isolation Pilot PlantEnvironments. SAND96-2538. Albuquerque,NM: Sandia National Laboratories.


Engineered Alternatives Cost/Benejit StudyFinal Repor~. DOE/WIPP 95-2135 Revision O.Albuquerque, NM: IT Corporation; Carlsbad,NM: United States Department of Energy,

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Carlsbad AreaOffice.


Transuranic Waste Baseline Inventory Report

(Revision 2). DOE/CAO-95-l 121. Carlsbad,NM: U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad AreaOffice.

T130 Prindle, N. H., F.T. Mendenhall, D.M. Borrk, W.

T131

Beyeler, D. Rudeen, R.C. Lincoln, K. Trauth,

D.R. Anderson, M.G. Marietta, and J.C. Helton.1996. The Second [teration of the Systems

Prioritization Method: A Systems Prioritization

and Decision-Aiding Tool for the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant, Volume 1: Synopsis of

Method and Results. SAND95-2017/l.


Laboratories.

Meigs, L. C., and J.T. McCord. 1996.

“Physical Transport in the Culebra Dolomite.”Unpublished Memorandum to File, July 11,1996. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia NationalLaboratories. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#39167.)

T132 Meigs, L. C., R.L. Beauheim, J.T. McCord,

Y.W. Tsang, and R. Haggerty. 1997. “Design,Modelling, and Current Interpretations of the H-

19 and H-1 1 Tracer Tests at the WIPP Site,”Field Tracer Experiments, Role in the

Prediction of Radionuclide Migration:

Synthesis and Proceeding of an NEA/EC

GEOTRAP Workshop, Cologne, Germany,

August 28-30, 1996. SAND96-2796C. Paris:

T138

T139

Radioactive Waste Management, Commissionon Geosciences, Environment, and Resources,National Research Council. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press. 6,79-80.

Taugher, M. 1996. “Scientists: WIPP Not A

Threat,” Albuquerque Journal. October 24,

1996. Section A, pages 1, 10.

Hansen, F. D., M.K. Knowles, T.W. Thompson,

T133

T134

Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation forEconomic Co-Operation and Development.

157-169.

Papenguth, H.W., and Y.K. Behl. 1996. ‘<TestPlan: Evaluation of Dissolved Actinide

Retardation at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.”TP 96-02. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National

Laboratories. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#3 1336.)

Brush, L. H., and L.J. Storz. 1996. “Revised

M. Gross, J.D. McLennan, and J.F. Schatz.1997. Description and Evaluation of a

Mechanistically Based Conceptual Model for

Span. SAND97-1369. Albuquerque, NM:


T140 Anonymous. 1997, “Independent Experts:

T141

WIPP Conceptual Models Adequate,” Carlsbad

Current-Argus. May 11, 1997. Section A, page3.

Corbet, T. 1997. “Expedited CCA Activity:

Ranges and Probability Distributions of K,s forDissolved Pu, Am, U, Th, and Np in theCulebra for the PA Calculations to Support theWIPP CCA.” Memo to M.S. Tierney, July 24,1996. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National

Laboratories. (Copy on file in the SWCF asWPO#41561.)

TI 35 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

1996. “40 CFR Part 194: Decision to CertifyWhether the Waste Isolation Pilot PlantComplies with the 40 CFR Part 191 DisposalRegulations and the 40 CFR Part 194

Compliance Criteria; Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR),” Federal

Register. Vol. 61, no. 222,58499-58500.

TI 36 Taugher, M. 1996. “Key WIPP Document

Exceeds 400 Lbs,” Albuquerque Journal.November 21, 1996. Section D, page 3.

T] 37 NAS/NRC (National Academy of Sciences/

National Research Council). 1996. The WasteIsolation Pilot Plant: A Potential Solution for

the Disposal of Transuranic Waste. Committeeon the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Board on

Geochemistry/Hydrology Issue in Culebra.”Unpublished Report. Albuquerque, NM:

Sandia National Laboratories. (Copy on tile inthe SWCF as WPCW43215.)

T142 Taugher, M., and S. Smallwood. 1999. “WIPPOpening Ushers in New Nuclear Era,”

Albuquerque Journal. March 27, 1999.

T143

T144

T145

T146

Section A, pp. 1,2.

Brooke, J. 1999. “Deep Desert Grave AwaitsFirst Load of Nuclear Waste,” New York Times.March 26, 1999. Section A, pp. 1, 18.

Weart, W.D. 1983. Summary Evaluation of the

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site

Suitabi/i~. SAND83-0450. Albuquerque, NM:Sandia National Laboratories.

Langston, J. 1999. “Getting the Waste Out,”Idaho Falls Post Register. April 28, 1999,

Section A, p. 1.

Taugher, M. 1999. “WIPP Receives Colo.

Waste,’” Albuquerque Journal. June 17, 1999,

Section D, p. 1.

36

DistributionSAND98-O072 Revision

FederalAgencies

US Department of Energy (4)Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Mgmt.Attn: Deputy Director, RW-2

Director, RW- 10Office of Human Resources& Admin.

Director, RW-30Office of Program Mgmt. & Integ.

Director, RW-40Office of Waste Accept., Stor., & Tran.

Forrestal BuildingWashington, DC 20585

U. S. Department of Energy (3)Yucca Mountain Site Characterization OfficeAttn: Project Director RW-3

A. Van LuikP. O. Box 30307Las Vegas, NV 89036-0307

US Department of EnergyResearch & Waste Management DivisionAttn: DirectorP.O. Box EOak Ridge, TN 37831

US Department of Energy (6)Carlsbad Area OfficeAttn: I. Triay

G. T. BasabilvazoD. GalbraithM. McFaddenJ. A. MewhirmeyMaih-oom

P.O. Box 3090Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090

US Department of EnergyOffice of Environmental Restoration and

Waste ManagementAttn: M. Frei, EM-30Forrestrd BuildingWashington, DC 20585-0002

US Department of Energy (3)Office of Environmental Restoration and

Waste ManagementAttn: J. Juri, EM-34, Trevion IIWashington, DC 20585-0002

US Department of EnergyOffice of Environmental Restoration and

Waste ManagementAttm S. Schneider, EM-342, Trevion IIWashington, DC 20585-0002

US Department of Energy (2)Office of Environment, Safety& HealthAttn: C. Bergstrom, EH-25

R. Pelletier, EH-231Washington, DC 20585

US Department of Energy (2)Idaho Operations OfficeFuel Processing & Waste Mgmt. Division785 DOE PlaceIdaho Falls, ID 83402

US Environmental Protection Agency (2)Radiation Protection ProgramsAttn: M. OgeANR-460Washington, DC 20460

US Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Radiation and Indoor AirRegion 6Attn: C. Byrum, GT-ET1445 Ross AvenueDallas, TX 75202

US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAt’m: N. E. EisenbergMS T7 F3Washington, DC 20555-0001

Boards

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety BoardAttm D. Winters625 Indiana Ave. NW, Suite 700Washington, DC 20004

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (3)Attn: Chairman

J. L. CohonC. Di Bells

2300 Clarendon Blvd. Ste 1300Arlington, VA 22201-3367

Distribution -1

State Agencies

Attorney General of New Mexico

P.O. Drawer 1508Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

Environmental Evaluation Group (3)Attn: Library7007 Wyoming NESuite F-2Albuquerque, NM 87109

NM Environment Department (3)Secretary of the Environment1190 St. Francis DriveSanta Fe, NM 87503-0968

NM Bureau of Mines & Mineral ResourcesSOCOmO,NM 87801

Laboratories/Corporations

Battelle Pacific Northwest LaboratoriesBattelle Blvd.Richland, WA 99352

Los Alamos National Laborato~Attn: B. Erdal, INC- 12P.O. BOX 1663Los Alamos, NM 87544

Tech Reps, Inc. (3)Attn: J. Chapman(1)

Loretta Robledo (2)5000 Marble NE, Suite 222Albuquerque, NM 87110

Westinghouse Electric Corporation (5)Attn: Library

J. EpsteinJ. LeeR. Kehrman

P.O. BOX 2078Carlsbad, NM 88221

S. Cohen & AssociatesAttn: Bill Thurber1355 Beverly RoadMcLean, VA2210 1

J. K. Research AssociatesAttn: T. Cotton2650 Park Tower Drive, Suite 800Vienna, VA 22180

Future Resources Associates, Inc.Attn: R. J. Budnitz, President2039 Schattuck Ave. Suite 402Berkeley, CA 94704

Western Water Consultants (2)Attn: P. A. Rechard611 Skyline RoadLaramie, WY 82070-8909

Winston & StrawnAttn: F. S. Echols

1400 L Street NWWashington, DC 20005

ICF ConsultingAttn: C. G. Whipple2101 Webster Street, Suite 1000Oakland, CA 94612

PLG IncorporatedAttn: B. J. Garrick4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 400Newport Beach, CA 92660-2027

National Academy of SciencesWIPP Panel

Tom Kiess (15)Staff Study DirectorGF4562101 Constitution Ave.Washington, DC 20418

Universities

University of New MexicoGeology DepartmentAttn: Library141 Northrop HallAlbuquerque, NM 87131

University of WashingtonCollege of Ocean & Fishery SciencesAttn: G. R. Heath583 Henderson Hall, HN- 15Seattle, WA 98195

Vanderbilt UniversityAttn: Frank L. ParkerDepartment of Environmental EngineeringP.O. BOX 1596BNashville, TN 37235

Distribution -2

University of MinnesotaAttn: C. FairhurstDepartment of Civil and Mineral Engineering500 Pillsbury Dr. SEMinneapolis, MN 55455-0220

University of MichiganNuclear Engineering and Radiological SciencesAttn: R. C. Ewing2355 Bonisteel Blvd.Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2104

University of CaliforniaDepartment of Nuclear EngineeringAttn: T. Pigford4159 Etcheverry HallBerkeley, CA 94720

Libraries

Thomas Brannigan LibraryAttn: D. Dresp106 W. Hadley St.Las Cruces, NM 88001

Government Publications DepartmentZimmerman Libra~University of New MexicoAlbuquerque, NM 87131

New Mexico Junior CollegePannell LibraryAttn: R. HillLovington HighwayHobbs, NM 88240

New Mexico State LibraryAttn: N. McCallan325 Don GasparSanta Fe, NM 87503

New Mexico TechMartin Speere Memorial LibraryCampus StreetSOCOITO,NM 87810

WIPP Information CenterATTN: Y. Acosta4021 National Parks HighwayCarlsbad, NM 88220

Foreign Addresses

Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.Whiteshell LaboratoriesAttn: B. GoodwinPinawa, Manitoba, CANADA ROE I LO

Francois Chenevier (2)ANDRAPare de la Croix Blanche1-7 rue Jean Monnet92298 Chatenay-Malabry CedexFRANCE

Claude SombretCentre d’Etudes Nucleaires de la Vallee RhoneCEN/VALRHOS.D.H.A. B.P. 17130205 Bagnols-Sur-CezeFRANCE

Comrnissariat a L’Energie AtomiqueAttn: D. AlexandreCentre d’Etudes de Cadwache13108 Saint Paul Lez Durance CedexFRANCE

University et Mane CurieLaboratories de Geologie AppliqueAttn: Ghislain deMarsily4, Place JussieuT. 26- Se etage7522 Paris Cedex 05FRANCE

Bundesanstalt fir Geowissenschaften undRohstoffeAttn: M. LangerPostfach 510153D-3063 1 Ha-moverGERMANY

Bundesministerium fur Forschung undTechnologiesPostfach 2007065300 Bonn 2GERMANY

Gesellschaft fiu Anlagen und Reaktorsicherheit(GRS)Attn: B. BaltesSchwertnergasse 1D-50667 CologneGERMANY

Distribution -3

Bundesant fhr Strahlenschutz (BfS)Attn: P. BrenneckePostfach 100149D-3820 1 SalzgitterGERMANY

Shingo TashiroJapan Atomic Energy Research InstituteTokai-Mura, Ibaraki-Ken, 319-11JAPAN

Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECNAttn: J. Prij3 WesterduinwegP.O. Box 11755 ZG PettenTHE NETHERLANDS

Svensk Karnbransleforsorjning ABAttn: F. KarlssonProject KBS (Kambranslesakerhet)BOX 5864S-102 48 StockholmSWEDEN

Nationale Genossenschaft fur die LagerungRadioaktiver Abfalle (2)Attn: S. Vomvoris

P. ZuidemaHardstrasse 73CH-5430 WettingenSWITZERLAND

AEA TechnologyAttn: J. H. ReesD5W/29 Culham LaboratoryAbington, Oxfordshire OX14 3DBUNITED KINGDOM

AEA TechnologyAttn: W. R. Rodwell044/A31 Winfrith Technical CentreDorchester, Dorset DT2 8DHUNITED KINGDOM

AEA TechnologyAttn: J. E. TinsonB4244 Harwell LaboratoryDidcot,OxfordshireOX11 ORAUNITED KINGDOM

MS061207010701070607160735073707590778077907790779077107710771073313951395139513951395139907310731901808990612

Q&0111610061006113680561156831682168516849684968486800680068006832682168216821681068606850683268118940-249164912

Internal

C. J. MoraL. ShephardP. B. DaviesD. E. MunsonR. L. HunterT.F. CorbetE. J. NowakM. S. TierneyH. A. DockeryD. R. AndersonR. P. Rechard (5)H. N. JOWM. ChuS. Y. PickeringW. D. WeartJ. T. HolmesM. MariettaB. A. HowardS. WagnerN. Z. ElkinsR. D. WatersS. A. OrrellC. Northrop-Salazar (2)NWM Library (100)Central Technical FilesTechnical Library (2)Review and Approval Desk,For DOE/OSTI

B. G. J. Thompson20 Bonser RoadTwickenhamMiddlesex, TWI 4RGUNITED KINGDOM

Distribution -4

How to select nonlinear crystals and model their .../67531/metadc... · references over 500 papers...

Documents

Transcript of How to select nonlinear crystals and model their .../67531/metadc... · references over 500 papers...