JUL 19 '96 14:44 EMNRD P.1/3

it:\ NEW MEXICO ENERGY, MINERALS ~ & NAruRAL RESOURCES DEPARTMDRNT

Ol'l'ICE di' THEi SEiClll!1AR'I' 2040 sowlll Pacheco $troet san111 Fo, How ••11lco 17505 l$OdJ 827-fHO

Jennifer A. Salisbury CABINET $1!CRl!TARY

J'uly; 19, 1996

Mr. George Dials Manager Carlsbad Area Off ice u.s. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88220-3090

Mr. Robert H. Neill Director Enviromnental Evaluation Group 7007 Wyoming Bou1avard, N.E. Albuquerque, NM 87109

Mr.·. Benito Garcia, Chief Radioactive and Hazardous

Materials Bureau N.M. Environment Dept. P.O. Box 26110 Santa Fe, NM 87502

Mr. Lindsay Lovejoy, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Attorney General's Office P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

~ybject: FIWAL AGBRDA FOR WIPP QUARTERLY RBVXBW MBBTXNG, THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1996, I!il SANTA FE

Attached is a copy of the final agenda for the next WIPP Quarterly Review Meeting, to be held Thursday, July 25, at the N.M. Regulation and Licensing Department's large conference room at 725 st. Michael's Drive in santa f'e.

Please ensure all of the appropriate individuals in your orqanizat.ion receive a copy of the final agenda and directions to the meeting (which was attached to my correspondence of July 11). l look forward to an informative and productive meetin9.

Sincerely,

Chris J. Wentz Coordinator N. M. Radioactive Waste consultation 'l~a.sk Force

Attachment - 1 (Final Meeting Agenda}

960719

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

JUL 19 '96 14:46 EMNRD P.2/3

S:JO a.m.

8:40 a.m,

9:20 a.m.

9:50 a.m.

10:10 a.m.

10:30 a.m.

10:45 a.m.

11:00 a.m.

11:45 a.m.

l

2

3

***FINAL AGENDA***

ssst WIPP QUARTBRLY RJNlEW MEETING July 25, 1996

N.M. Regulation and Licensing Department Large Conference Room

725 St. Michael's Drive Santa Fe, NM

Introduction and Opening Remarks

u.s. Department of Energy: Status/Activity Report1

Environmental Evaluation Gi:oup: Status/Activity Report2

N.M. Environlllent Department: status/Activity Report3

N.M. Radioactive Waste Tas)~ Force:

10 min.

40 min.

30 min.

20 min.

Status/Activity Report 20 min.

BREAK

EPA Compliance criteria Lawsuit: Status Report

Source of Exhaust Shaft Water and Lead

LUNCH

15 min.

45 ntin.

July 19, 1996

c.wentz 'task Force

G.Oials, DOE/CAO Manager

R.Neill, EEG Director

K.McKamey/ S.Zappe, NMED

c.Went~ Task Force

L.Lovejoy NMAG's Office

DOE/CAO

To include brief reports on: status of final Baseline Inventory Report; planned hearing schedule and comment period for the Supplemental EIS-II; schedule for submittal or chapters of the final Compliance certification Application; and schedule for future OOE­EPA technical exchanges.

I

To include brief overview of recently completed EEG reports and those in progress.

To include brief overview on future status of NMED Oversight Bureau-WIPP; and update on status of WIPP RCRA Part B per~~t.

JUL 19 '96 14:47 EMNRD

1:00 p.m.&

l: JO p.m.

2:00 p.:m.

2:30 p.:m.

2:45 p.m.

4:15 p. m.

4:45 p.m.

5:00 p.m.

***FINAL AGENDA*** (continued)

55th WIPP QUARTERLY RBVIBW XEETIBG July 25, 1996

TRU Waste Management Plan: status

No-Migration Variance Petition for WIPP Disposal operations: summary

Co:mments on Compliance Cert;ification Application (CCA} Chapters 2-5

BREAK

Pinal CCDF Calculations and PA Parameter Data4

Q&A/Discussions

.. Action Item" commitments/Closeout

ADJOURN

P.3/3

July 19. 1996

30 min. K.Hunter, DOE/CAO

30 min. c.snider, DOE/CAO

30 min. R.Neill, EEG

90 min. R.Anderson/ M.Marietta, SNL

30 min. All

10 min • c.wentz

' This presentation will review information on future drilling rates, including frequency of Castile brine interceptions; the incorporation of magnesium oxide (MgO) backfill in the repository; and any proposed credit for passive institutional controls.

11/22/96

Tentative Agenda

RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMITTEE (JOINT MEETING WITH THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE CONSULTATION TASK FORCE)

Monday, December 2

9:30 a.m.

9: 45 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

10:30 a.m.

10: 45 a.m.

12:00 Noon

1:30 p.m.

December 2-3, 1996 Room 101, Music Room

New Mexico State University Campus

Carlsbad

CALL TO ORDER --Representative Robert S. Light, RHMC Chair --Jennifer A. Salisbury, RWCTF Chair and Secretary

of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

WASTE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CONSORTIUM --Ron Bhada, Director

STORAGE OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE --Cheryl Runyon, National Conference of State

Legislatures

MESCALERO INTERIM SPENT FUEL STORAGE PROJECT --Jennifer Byers and Rob Burpo, Mescalero Tribe

STATUS REPORT ON WIPP 1998 OPENING --George Dials, Manager, Carlsbad Area Office,

Department of Energy --Bob Neill, Environmental Evaluation Group

LUNCH

EVALUATION OF CONTAMINATION AT THE GNOME SITE --Nancy Harkess and .Rli::J#r.. Maxwell, Nevada Office,

Department of Energy

2:00 p.m.

2:30 p.m.

4:00 p.m.

Tuesday, December 3

8:00 a.m.

9:00 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

12:00 Noon

3:00 p.m.

11/22/96

HUDSPETH COUNTY LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY --Ruben Alvarado, Chief Engineer, Texas

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority

HAZARDOUS AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE FACILITIES SITING

Chavez County Hazardous Waste Facility, Update --Ken Schultz, Gandy Marley, Inc.

Andrews County Hazardous Waste Storage Facility --Ron Hance, ~aste Control Specialists, Inc.

Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Site --Robert Hall, Lea Land Incorporated

RECESS

TOUR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER AND THE COMPUTER/ELECTRONICS CENTER, NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, CARLSBAD

TOUR OF THE ADVANCED MANUFACTURING AND INNOVATION TRAINING CENTER

TOUR OF THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT

WORKING LUNCH AT WIPF --George Dials, Manager, CAO-DOE

ADJOURNMENT

' ' 5'1,~ :_,, L/t/ - _(_,; ( tt-'V,'-J--

SSth WIPP QUARTERLY REVIEW MEETING July 25, 1996

ATTENDANCE SHEET

EEG

_L_. ~..;.._· _...: __ ~-\~; ;..;_(;_i 1_-_c.-__,_i _C_(_l1_v __ '.) ___ l_c_·-_J _C_i _f_fJ _t _,__cc:....__. .s· t c ~ /\/111 ,c· 7 s c / $' c 5 · 9 i( · I <.r 7 _;;

, /. /v L- ! ! cf. c-

•.J

I I I '

£,. ~ re:;: "I I~ 5u..te C-p•nt 5,+--= f=e. Nl7 i?Syr &>f-ftl..:'to--S-b

J I

~O'ACJ"~a tb/,7¥E/f4'e J'~t:J dhert?e, dv·£~4'd § e..ge fJC/sW_; l@.za /x>E/ r A-o L 01 (JJ, c,-,..,e 5i. ~&.p

,, -. -:: - -: -; I -- 7-~ :"-:.... /'.:'/ /'._; (~-./-.. ~·'-1...,,_ ~~ (/ __ '. .... ,~·:_{ /1:;"'-:-~ .-YA·' ~ 7 ~- .':° ~-.f- -·l•-/.,""".:._

:-·-i' c //~I I.

. 'i)f<- . 1/~>1~ £

/N/P? 4JvAYkv-li.-

~e Pv./s ~ ,µJu,µ.,_,/ !It~/ c?PA /' ;;{:.,...,../ ,,/ tu::..s ay,/, c ~ /" 14/ + 26-r: ''/ht'5' 15- -//-,5>~,4c/rf 7·"'/H/ A

cd-YJ/i..--c/ 6aA ? A- ~ /f//Y1 //;~ tt:.1-1~0,; . ,2)ac== ~/l/?/t)v/~

e~~~/.e / c~,5/ S~,1~_;- ~ recl'-<1~/~//Pn/~~/y cpe~~7.:_/ ~n; lzn,"/''j " ,

;J:dePI h"W ~~ ·k-~ "t"'t<ck.:-._~<?Y - ¥~ l~sk_ ~ t.i/.15-.s-~_, fo)/1-',v~~P,•--z-/ J~~v r-ev~t:J y.1--u/P ,~~ .£.Y.-i.. /~ /{/tt"t';n)i,_;-1 1>5v"Z

JM H/c-Y/ /i'\ /;/k<tt::A q?

5ez.s - ?v~!t~ A?t:---/·:rr /o - 11 /tf ;6 /Col.) >A: 7

-~ /116 )e>/2 2 ---z} )!~ liJ/zf'-$0

.6vt ;Jr_)/ c.r/~c j,' "

l/rA ·* WQSP-S- /<; d"'17 (~ ,{,,,_ ,._,;/ drl.J,, .f;.._,,d,,.,) JM~~1 ___ ./:ir~ ?v 1j>?

rh lt,f Mn~ 'J6.s4 ,~~ c,.,,11/ 11.<;/ Frhc?,,~/c/rorn/Y'tf/l,L o.., /?oof· ,JZJru.dL

~ 2/3 -J'.;,nl' 'N-~·'. ~-~ //~ /S- /._,4.- {<Jfo1~1/fae Jt-a_ ~ ~, /IQ ~:r k 6~cl.

(_.;11'47 kt.,,::; tu-'~·.·~ :>ee* ?'t:f/>v-t A~V"> 0/ ~,,,LS~ ~- _ reecrr_<t

1 w1~ ~v:"/ -~ Z>o€/erA/o/Ylfi> /~/?~J~ .---------

j/,;./ ;j/?jY a~1 ;;-~,// ~4,,_ /Le??/ rsT~ (f7fr':S'~rhJ' ~~// '--'1~ >~~- </-· ,/lo~ rJe_ ,;-~~~- ?al

.. /Jer(/ yi:..L<;.Rc/ h;z.7,YJ /~/I.,~ 5<,v~ 7/(v k.lt~sk ----~7511'1_/ ___ pc;~ - lv<,1r; ,-J-- ~II ~~ ( I Uh~ I #J1c/._. 2ov 2( rr) /l/vm~v> 1~u,,1 /e.i_ ci;,,,'./- .?y~ r,_,.1·M 3/K rev 'J r­

Jf-c,..-IL. ?~ _ J1,_¥7 ~/- o/ ,,.ltAA-K:_" ~KC-5<-".r ~ \'!!'"<._ ~.T<<J;t-'1..ec.f Pd! fo-. -e.~,,..; revw0 - e,,./ .;:J"ly, &-7 /-h.I"'/

d1/!?~~"'~ ,,Ve> L

# -~..-</ ~~_,..,,..,. 'Sfo~ "'" ~ ~~/<.)~~.rz.... •

()o~ ail~~le/ vt ~.>h ~~y ~J-,f;e( /r/u' ~~, ~ /,~-r ~ 1n £,'*'- ;Jr~,ll_ ~/14, /crak~r £ ~ ~ ~-- ~ ,1w '7 ~cl 7J ;~5;u:;/'-k/ ( f /11?) ~~1,,~£71 er~ck<I' 2'=(/ n 1I :JPe"/~ ~.7.4 /

Zo10 -- <'~"'-5-h../v~'- /(c~~cs;-y ~ .qk. b,/Jv,- o/1t'~ /"? j,~ s-· _,4 uv rt ~~_,/;t;,-5 . ~7 ~ 4 we "''-'~ kcL/ ,,;,{ (SX, ,,.-a:} ~-:>Ad ..y~d. ! (!) ~# ~( 1~ ~v.,,,~~£ ;2- ks/~'t ,,_.,~.e.

!>ac vn..:64- ~ ~~ ~'iil~.P1-.. I- ~/,,,,~;~~ ... JR_ ~ls4- L~ f; i~e/~,h;­

re_ 7 q?-\. /»"' i./~ sec4-- ~ l-~ t,}' -

L ~n)~ 5"J~/Ci) f 5';4, 1

/c( -"/c/~k../ f"/4r ~/~ Joe;~. ?rl ,{'el 7~6 ~) 4"<'~ ~· zP.I. ~14 ~~ / 1 A. /U..,cf.eµ- Vhk f:Pid nef' £uy hM~ f/U"-{, c.p-, / ;/ ~e cl h e;yµ;c../

CYuur4 ,/tiJ /~j,;,, 5~ 511{ C<.Nv!f ~k ~r;J~-2<_ ,/J2 ckiip'--/ df Pn/ k~ d~ drpo>k( :r/-4.

" , I . - . . , "-~5- ~'/'~, ;;;,;,5~ -X:/,/ ~~'5 ~M '",;;'.£{?(<,j ~. ~=~, ./A, 4~ ( ~. ty;nJ> c~/:-u~AM /iq cas I 't.(. 2 6 ~ d.Je, 1'-( j /#'\_ ;vt-""~~-u,.4_ ~. ~ l:fj r/1,;.);, .,/'( (b.5}, d.'J!<'. -',/ _f"Nnc.j,.,_ ,;_/.r

A~c:tr..leH) JnJ-,ri_ ~~ ·- IH>l-- 4 1~11h=.,4~r tA~ ~ cir/;~;- )i-· -;?r~' lolfc~vr o~- ~k. 1;1ks J-e)v!h:; ~ ~_).~ J fo.-Ckt*-r 14;...u- jJ th d ~ r7cA-/ er/ Qfc~~~~-4~ j?..Yt-t'""!)'.-.

LJk N<f d/,~/aA-) /Jo,l__ claw,~ ~ C111t-fik_j_ t./ 1~/~ ( v;:/h/~:~4-5 M/;~~1.-i-7a__~) tu./ /" ~5j~ /~ 1 11 4& J ,/Z_ >.:L,{

1 w.k~ ~n4 4_,0

~n/e/ ~> ~'-e.£1-/~--d~. 5'-A -~iJ ,/rr~ ~wJJy<Ji 4 4.) ~ cJ veret'S "1 ;~;11 '"""' ~, , £~/ z, J-t.O!- ·ft.ve_ •, /l->~b1.>t) -e~kef ~- c"'~/>f

wifz.. r./( /)o{ n5v w'u;.,_ Ab,/f ,{ peM.-;le /ctlf, 7~/>-< ;{1-u~.e_ c>/ £R?v;1~_ /Atv Y- lfa'lo1- ~ . v//~J' ~~,'4_/ % fPk·-=-4_,

,{.//- jw/ (A:('crl ~hf'. /;~illy ,# .~rz::~;--. 4kr/~, -s-jnye "'L(CJ yeoc:1-y

1 w·h~s #v//r/,q ~~ 'Jf.J -tao /Ra.,_,

/;--,;"?1v#<.11 ~~rl~;~az_ ·- v-Aft-,{er ?.4V7/cer" ..4 ~ vz.u,;.,k_..f_ ~l/e~

Ml covteen-iec/ t.vl·lk eFne11 Q.

{o~;z_>~.,£ .. ., 11eve.- :nJ~ - 1 5 r-- /; .J.k. , / ~/11 ,nGJ [dJr?_?e~ sc_~ 4-.-- . " ~) /, J r. t;,;4_/e. A>7v"VZ 90/~ v,:rt{.~ :;·~:,,{_ t....evRkc.e~·--.. OW-,- 2~~ ;...._, Ze:i7 ,._,

,,£.U!d C1~1 Sr6)T n?02f) /; o-n 7r. ,,?( eP!~ ,_,/ (4'7/ epc<I Co17Mch- <J//"1.//rs~/ t../// 4 .t.e.S'~h/

, /JI /4 ;flc £/~" dJhrfrvefv<:JZ / (y vr/.ef ~ ,;1h11 7~o1 vou ~1lt1"'- ~6 ~/ / Je:d_.~ t>;J J_,;V~ ~L

~ 11/~!I !/)(/A/ -;;~ /1/1.nc7 ;Ji-J:t?5r 6fl0~ 5/~ - '6~cls.rvv~ c/ 1~_

"~,, ~ W~ &iful 5}}ecr~/u) Kct<A/rscA ;"Je~(,41,/ 9J;;;( /it 1:-:.~97 fh,J.,.._,5 u;.,,,~ J4t I 4j 9y' ~""-,,//:~-;/. Louj,~ / us)..-,,, r£,_ ,4n.?.~r { ,_,,,/.t' I/ (~ 7)<' ' '>"'I ~5 / g;_," "--' (V/11 ' ff, d c1~7 ~,,.,,. ~

~- k1-id ~//. I 7 rwx~ ~ ~e1v.~ ~ ~ {owi1-iv •. 4'1 1 7 5'-(.J,a~!V~ _,L -s .. .,,,euC1...- :.1~/"':f. /;bry· j?oJ.j) t:'-j. 51~ 5111.~ 1> #,ct~"- 5 /k .

"'iS-P? . ~~~J ~~·r /-f ~ /1--. /f~~( e?01e£5 ~~ IE~1~ c1- Jh 1>11, itv~d ""~ e7~t(1.er 1/,/1 J,o~f ~1! tJ~,,/ .tG A~~~ /L£J h_h"'/ e/ )~»--?2- - ~c_/ ~ ,V-t7 , /0'5"'-"~ feE C.Lt.--J

/r·y1)._/ -n<>Jt.':f h~/7~/ C17e:e1'7 /2/5

~n:~ 1/t>f ~7 / ~tf/t~ rRct'<JJ '1484_ a~ h /,,~ ,

I"'- ~(/- c~-1-- - "7c:>1/rl /"tc/<-4'41 5~1<!), C(cS<.>/ caWt~ttc&.I '"' / L...J ,0 jd_fi_,,,,,,,._ ( G-.-<7 ,ri},,) . ~ ,-,-,4 _,_4_ o{ 'I''-" 5<. ( ..-,,, s ~ <'-' '/ZD I c'v 1/ /117 t:..a::y;i rv..m le/rd tv?54_ f't ~ µre

(L) Jvs-fr•rl

M11- ;4/( JL/v1_,,lz,~2; ~~ 9~ /#1 /j,/.£s aH'~ )'/')~ 01//,fcs ivsi~>J-Ai-ti_ I vt~ fl t-e b-- /1:,:i:J I ~d---5/t :~ y _ /A.//} I"'- £ c--f vc-'-'~ ~, #1,~vuc '(k:. (

Ck- ~sJ,>I>~ I · ./ ___ Wi-s k > . /:/-vo 1 d lk-.) .r le.r ~ r->oc te;.. 1-~ d 7 ltP z_ (.,...C_ r k , ~ ;n,v m c tpe-(

/1--Pf. I l!I . /1/6 0 vt:-1 { J01 I ri. ·-;r4J. 5) t '- reel~~ J0 / ~ zJ ,,/' ~( !"''~+ &_~,, (]v!,0 /;lo,6/~ "" 44"7 u}ro .

it/" cf-,ve--p ~~ - ~/- ~ /.1~ ?°/rv41

)If ~-c/ l'~c.n1ks/ ;In? 1vl'i() ~ ( -> ~ 1 d t-Zo k cha.k. ~~vi/ ~ ~v~ r/.

O;;< 1 #I/ d J~,ri 17 >

!(,,, ).:L/i ~"; //1 P-/,7 /,,. 4 p:; I/ .A/v ""<' YPv> cJ ,15 ' Mi' _//._,, r ~5/?'H > ,./, j ~ fr;.,r-( Gd( f/ZOV-J z<.<f ~KIJ-9 - 5/P!C-e :,,,~~~,/ ,?erJ+>d- ??-<.JQ>.ES r ~/.4cr

j-eCJ t, f ,,. c<.../ !feAe~/y of 7 1 ~

NMED Tentative WIPP RCRA Permitting Schedule

1995 1996 1997 ID Name Duration Sched Start Sched End May I Jun I Jul I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec Jan !Feb I Marl Apr !May I Jun Jul !Aug lsep I octlNov I Dec JanlFeb/MarlAprlMay!Junl Jul !Aug

1 Receive Part B, Rev 5 Od 5/31/95 5/31/95 • 2 Administrative Review 44d 5/31/95 7/31/95

3 Finalize Technical Review Contract 23d 8/1/95 8/31/95 !!!!! 4 Create Technical Review Schedule 5d 9/1/95 9/8/95 ~

5 Technical Review 60d 9/11/95 12/7/95 • • 67 DOE Submit Revisions 30d 12/4/95 1/17/96 ... .. 76 NMED Evaluate DOE Final Response 41d 1/18/96 3/14/96 ~

77 Issue Technical NOD Od 3/14/96 3/14/96 • 78 Technical NOD Response 22d 3/15/96 4/15/96 ~

79 NMED Evaluate NOD Response 46d 4/12/96 6/17/96 • • 86 NMED Issue Determination Od 6/17196 6/17/96 • i

-------87 NMED Develop Draft Permit

130 Public Notice/Comment

131 Public Meeting

132 Respond to Public NoUMtg Comments

133 Public Hearing(s)

134 Finalize PermiURespond to Comment

135 Submit to NMED WWM Div. Director

136 Permit Review by Director

137 Permit Notice of Decision

138 Final Permit Decision

Notes to WlPP RCRA Permit Schedule:

1) Scheduled dates and durations are estimates as of 6127196

2) Duration days are working days, not calendar days.

3) Some activities may not occur (e.g., Public Hearings), but have been included for completeness.

4) Some activities have relatively certain durations (e.g., Permit Notice of Decision) due to regulatory requirements. Other activities have uncertain durations (e.g., Public Notice/Comment) due to the possibility of requests by the public to extend the allotted time.

Project: NMED WIPP RCRA Permit Critical ~A Progress Summary T ... Date: 6/27/96 Noncritical iilll li!il l!i!!i!tl Milestone • RolledUp +

Page 1

WIPP 55th QUARTERLY REVIEW

George E. Dials, Manager

Carlsbad Area Off ice

July 25, 1996

•

--

Action Items

ACTICJ1'll ITEMS 54th WIPP QUARTERLY REVIEW

April 24, 1996

Provide the CAO with a copy of Hamid Maleki's report on Mine Stability.

Provide the EEG with status of its outstanding requests to the DOE.

1) User's Manual for computer codes used in performance assessment. Requested Jan. 5, 1996; promised Mar. 6, 1996. 2) Final resolution of FEPs. Reports requested Jan. 5, 1996. 3) Material given to the conceptual model peer review group, including their qualifications and Nov. 1995 DOE-approved drafts of Chapter 6 of the CCA. Requested April 2, 1996. 4) Access to Parameter Data Documents and Form 464s for data used in the CCA performance assessment. (Request sent to SNL.) 5) Request to present EEG's views to all peer review groups.

The EEG requested a meeting with Martin Tierney and Susan Howarth to review data packages the week of May 6, 1996.

The EEG requested that copies of documentation be made available to the EEG prior to the documentation being sent to the Records Center. This would negate the EEG having to request documents from the Records Center and would speed up the EEG's review of such documentation. Items specifically requested were Berglund documentation and other material that becomes the basis for data packages.

Provide the EEG with a copy of SAND 96-0561.

Provide Lindsay Lovejoy with a copy of SAND 96-0561.

The EEG requested a special meeting to discuss SAR with regards to worker dose assessments in the WAC.

Rev. 7111196

Action By

Bob Neill, EEG

Received 511196.

Mike McFadden, CAO

1) Provided by SNL 5i.3/96 per request of M.McFadden, CAO. 2) Partial response sent 316196; final sent 6114196. 3) Response sent 412.4196 and 512.196.

4) Response by SNL 518196.

5) Response sent 512.196.

Mike McFadden, CAO

Meeting held at EEG in Albuquerque 5117196.

Mike McFadden, CAO

Response sent 7/9/96. (#96-1487)

Mike Irwin, SNL

Copy of draft document sent to G.Basabilvazo, CAO, 512.1196, for review and distribution. Copy sent to EEG 6111196.

Mike Irwin, SNL

Copy of draft document sent to G.Basabilvazo, CAO, 512.1196, for review and distribution. Copy sent to EEG 6111196.

Kent Hunter, CAO

Meeting conducted 518196.

Provide the EEG with definitions of defense and non-defense waste and share additional information. Cooper Wayman & Don Watkins, CAO

The CAO is working this internally within the DOE. When completed, definitions and supporting information will be provided. Completion is estimated to be in late summer or fa/11996.

Provide EEG and NMEMNRD with a copy of the letter from the CAO to the AG which described defense Lindsay Lovejoy, NMAG waste and volumes.

Provided 4129196.

Schedule 55th WIPP Quarterly Review. Chris Wentz, NMEMNRD

Scheduled for July 25, 1996, in Santa Fe, NM. The NMEMNRD will host it.

WIPP Disposal Decision Plan FY 1994 I FY 1995 FY 1996

I

Regulatoryffechnical Processes) I

Subm!t Drnft Compliance Submit Draft No Migration I Envmmmental Protect:on Issue Btcnmal Ccrttltcatton Package Variance Petition for Agency (EPA) Issue Environmental (191) to EPA 3195 Disposal to EPA 5195 40 CFR 194 2196+ Compliance

\ Report 10/96 *

Issue Biennial Conservation & Recovery Act Submtt No Mtgrat:on Environmental (RCRA) Pan B Apphcatton to Variance Petitton for RCRA Compliance New Mexico Environment Disposal to EPA 6/96 Per:mt Report I0/94 * Department (NMED) 5/95 Issued - 8/96 *

FY 1997

Submit Compliance Ccrtilication Application to EPA 10196 *

Disposal Phase Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (ROD) .1197

No Migration Dctennination Issued 6/97

Updated 7/15/96 Revision 2

October 6, 1995

FY 1998

EPA Ccrtilication I0/97 *

Secretary of Energy Decision to Operate WIPP as Disposal Facility 10/97 * (All Land Withdrawal Act. (LWA) Requirements Mell WIPP Program

Compliance Status Report 3/94 '----.__,.

Stakeholders/Oversight

Submtt Revised Resource ~ \'

\ ,1:..@'

• • Experimental Programs & Performance Assessment (PA)

t: t t ...... ......

111• t ..... t ..... ·~ - - - -

Final Perfonnance Publish Scaling Input for the 10/96 Systems Design Com(l_hance Report I 0195 Certtltcatton

Complementary Cumulative Fmal CCDF . Distribution Function Calculations to

QI] ®

Notes 1996-1998 m1 lc~tones arc dependent on funding allocation from Program Budget Cydc.

=Comae! Dav!d Ho!mt.>s .. (505) 2_14_7_~14.

for mfonnalion or 4ueslions related lo Lh1s document.

1

1

I •Fin~! J,de!~ to PA for 9/96 \ ~~~1~~a/ir 1;;~;~~lication 619

\

(CCDF) 9195 Compliance Sandia National Laboratories Application 6/96 *All a.-;soc1alcd compliance LWA (SNL) Documentation to 3/95 requirement>

QI] ®

Stakeholder/Oversight Legend

@ NM & Envimnmcnlal Evalualion Group Quarterly Meetings

(s) ~~~~~~:I Academy of Sciences Quarterly ..,, iTH,;c;.u;E;:~

® QI]

EPA Scheduled Meetings

Annual Hurcau of Mines Safely Evaluatton

Annual NM State Advisory Panel

Draft Compliance Package 12194 + EPA controlled actim1. . . . . r-----;----~----""""-----t---'l:lr-~--jt--;----~---"l:lk-iifr---~-_;,IA,--~-.. tr--;-----t-.1.....;;;.;...;.;;;;.;,;;.;;;.;;.;.;,;;.;;;... ____ -'YH Schedule tor addtltonal penodtc Slakeholder

@ Medical Training Report

Waste Characterization, Certification, and Inventory i Inventory Delinition 1·

to Fmal Compltance Performance Based Waste Acceptance Criteria Prelimmary Baseline Assumptions I0/94

· Publish First Baseline • Inventory Report 6194: : ·-----.:

Col>erations-) \ Inventory Definition to

Compliance Package 3/95 --.....___1

Package 6/96 \j Issue TRUWaste

Provide Supplemental Inventory Management Data to PA Based on Waste Plan 9/96 Characterization Plan I 2195 ' \

\.i. ' ' >--

Comprehensive Disposal Recommendation Submitted to Congress 5197 *

Opcratlo~l Readi,ness Declaration 9/97

Issue Decommissioning & Post Decommissioning Plan 9/97 *

mcclings to be detcnnined. Stakeholder milestones arc based on hesl current cslimaH.::.

I

Approved:

~~E~A-aeor;:Dia1s )

/o/t.. /q.s-' Date

Manager, Carlsbad Area Office

Notify States & Indian Tribes of Intent to Transport 10/97.

RH Operations are Planned to Begin in FY 2002

N I

Carrier Operational 6/97 uc car Regulatory -

Commission (NRC) C?mplcte Remote Complete NRC Approval of RH Approve Disposal Beg:n -Recertifies TRUPACT-11 Handled (RH) RH Study Safety Analysts Report Operations Safety CH Disposal 8/94 Strategy 3195 10195 * tor Packagmg 9/96 Analysis Report 3/97 , Operations 4/98

DDP MILESTONES

• Completed DDP milestones since last Quarterly

- Submitted NMVPfordisposal phase to EPA 6/96

- Inventory definition to final compliance package 6196 - Final performance input for 10/96 compliance

certification application 7196 - Final CCDF calculations to compliance application 7196

• Upcoming DDP milestones

- RCRA permit issued 8196 - Issue TRU Waste Management Plan 9196 - NRC approval of RH Safety Analysis Report for

Packaging 9196

,~T~~

~~J 796R:69na ~

LITIGATION ACTIVITIES

• TWO ACTIONS ON 40CFR194 (EPA Lawsuits)

• Attorney General of New Mexico, SWIC (pre -194 publication) EPA failure to finalize criteria per LW A schedule Promulgate CAG outside of rulemaking Covert meetings EP A/DOE/OMB Mandamus Action denied by Court of Appeals

• Attorney General's - New Mexico, Texas, SWIC, and Two Citizens EPA failed to give notice and allow public comment after en_d of comment period Substantially changed rule DOE/OMB exercised undue influence on final rule EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in decision

,.;;;; @ WIPP Compliance Document Sta~~~AreaOffire ~

• Submitted RCRA Part B Rev. 6 on 4/12/96

• Completeness letter issued on 6/27 /96

• RCRA Draft Permit being developed

• Submitted N~1VP on 6/18/96

• NMVP undergoing review

• ''Phased'' Draft CCA being submitted

• Phases undergoing review

• Final CCA submittal scheduled for 10/96

Compliance Certification Application -Status of Chapters-

Material Submitted Date Submitted to EPA, EEG • Chapter 2, ''Site Characterization" 4/24/96

Appendices (4) 6/24/96, 7/19/96 • Chapter 3, "Facility Description"

Appendices (2)

• Chapter 4, "Waste Description"

Appendices (3)

• Chapter 5, "Quality Assurance"

Appendices (1)

• Chapter 7, "Assurance Requirements"

Appendices (5)

6n6~6

6n4~6

sn9~6

6/24/96,7/19/96 614196 &24~6

7/24/96 7/24/96

Technical Exchange Plans • July 30-31, 1996

- Engineered Alternatives Cost/Benefit Study, Passive Institutional Controls Effectiveness Study Overviews

- Overview of Peer Reviews for These Studies

• August 7-9, 1996 - Scenario Screening

- CCA Performance Assessment - CCDF Development

• Week of September 9, 1996 - Discussion of Castile Brine and Culebra Transport

• Week of September 16, 1996 - Waste-Related Issues

• BIR, WAC, WIPP Waste Information System

PA Code Training Plans

• Training for EPA, EEG performed by SNL - SANTOS: Week of 8/12/96

-NUTS/PANEL: Week of8/19/96

- CUTTINGS: Week of 8/26/96

- SECO and GRASP-INV: Week of 9/23/96

BASELINE INVENTORY REPORT

• Background

- BIR Rev. 1, published 2/95

- BIR Rev~ 2~ oublished 12/28/95 , . - Data to PA 3/31/96

- BIR Rev. 3, published 6/30/96

BASELINE INVENTORY REPORT CH WASTE

Site

HANFORD INEL LANL ORNL RFETS SRS Small Quantity Sites

Total All Sites

All Volumes in Cubic Meters Numbers rounded to 2 significant figures Data from Table ES-3 TWBIR Rev 3

Stored

12,000 29,000 11,000

1,300 710

2,900 1,100

58,000

Projected Total Anticipated

33,000 46,000 0 29,000

7,400 18,000 260 1,600

4,400 5,100 6,800 9,600 1,700 2,800

54,000 110,000

BASELINE INVENTORY REPORT RH WASTE

Site

Batelle Columbus Lab HANFORD INEL LANL ORNL

Small Quantity Sites

Total All Sites

All Volumes in Cubic Meters Numbers rounded to 2 significant figures Data from Table ES-4 TWBIR Rev 3

Stored

580 200 220 94

2,500

20

3600

Projected Total Anticipated

0 580 22,000 22,000

0 220 99 190

450 2,900

1,300 1,300

23,000 27,000

LAND WITHDRAWAL. AMENDMENTS ACT

• HR 1663- Skeen, Schaefer, Crapo

• Amendment to S 1745-Craig, Kempthorne, Johnston, Murkowski, Thurmond, Domenici, Bingaman

THE AMENDMENTS

• EPA's role maintained

- EPA certifies (1 year); DOE submits application in increments

• HR 1663repeals180-day waiting period; S 1745 30-day waiting period

• Eliminates plans/studies as disposal requirement

• Exempts WIPP waste from RCRA land disposal restrictions

• Accelerates opening, November 30, 1997

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT PART B APPLICATION

40 CFR 264 Operating Standards

• Order issued by New Mexico Environment Department Secretary, 9/2/94

• Final application submitted to New Mexico Environment Department on 5/26/95

• Notice of Deficiency received 3/14/96

• DOE responses provided 4/12/96

• DOE received Notice of Completeness 6/27 /96

• CAO Disposal Decision Plan schedule calls for permit issuance 8/96; expect to revise to reflect state needs

WIPP DISPOSAL PHASE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(SEIS) • Purpose

- To examine the environmental impacts of transuranic waste at WIPP

• Scope

- Examines impacts of four alternatives for disposing of transuranic waste at WIPP and two no-action alternatives that would involve continued storage of waste at the generator sites

• More detailed information is available in the implementation plan

• Approval delayed

- Draft WM-PEIS determined inadequate for SEIS analysis of treatment site impacts due to lack of treatment facility accident impact analysis

796R:6978f

WIPP: One valuable safe step toward solution of the national nuclear waste disposal problem

• WIPP is focused and on schedule

• Remaining critical areas for continued research have been identified

• Path to regulatory compliance identified

• Disposal operations will begin 1998 ·

- ENVIRONMENT AL eJALUATION GROUP

........................................ ~EGUALOPPCIATWTY/AfflllMAlMACTXlNIMPLOYER ...

7007 WYOMING BOULEVARD, N.E. SUITE F·2

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87109 (eo5} 829-1003

July 22, 1996

Mr. George Dials, Manager Carlsbad Area Office U.S.DepartmentofEnergy P. 0. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090

Dear Mr. Dials:

FAX (505) 829-1082

Attached is the EEG review of Chapter S, •Quality Assurance,• from the WIPP Compliance Certification Application (CCA), published as DOEICA0-96-2056 on May 31, 1996. Chapter S contains significant omissions and errors, and does not appear to meet the QA requirements listed in 40 CFR 194 or the expectations for QA as listed in the Compliance Application Guidance (CAG; EPA 402-R-95-014).

While the EPA bas agreed to review the CCA a chapter at a time, the expectation was that each chapter would be a final version that would illustrate the DOE's best explanation of how the regulatory requirements for the areas covered by that chapter have been met. Chapter 5 contains many •placeholders•, which are apparently to be replaced by data and analyses which have yet to be generated. Two appendices a:re referenced which were not included; the included Appendix RE-5 is apparently not referenced by the chapter, and is either incomplete or unnecessary. The EEG cannot provide a complete review until the additional information is added to the chapter package.

Chapter 5 also fails to meet the QA expectations listed in the CAG under the heading ·1194.22 Quality Assurance• (page 18). The EPA clearly states on page l of the CAG that these expectations will be the criteria by which the completeness of the application will be judged, and that no further actions will be taken until the expectations are included. EEG could only verify that one of the first five expectations was included in Chapter 5. Unless it is the DOE's intention to meet the CAG QA expectations elsewhere in the CCA then Chapter S is also deficient in this regard.

For the most part Chapter 5 also fails to respond bJ the EPA comments on the Draft Compliance Certification Application (DCCA), as transmitted to your office on October 31, 1995 and January 30, 1996, and to some extent fails to address the comments published in

Providing an iltt»petlMnt technical analysis of t,,. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPPJ, a federal transuranic nucl•r waste repository.

Mr. George Dials Page2 July 22, 1996

EEG-61, •Review of the WIPP Draft Application to Show Compliance with the EPA Transuranic Waste Disposal Standards• (March, 1996) concerning the DCCA QA Chapter. Chapter S contains editorial and technical difficulties which could delay the EEG and the EPA review of the complete application. A listing of some of these, as well as additional commentary on the •placeholders•, CAG expectations, and other issues, can be found attached to this letter.

There is no indication in Chapter 5 that objective criteria are applied when audit teams determine the effectiveness of QA program adequacy and implementation. The process by which program effectiveness is determined should be described in Chapter S.

Chapter 5 appears to be substantially incomplete. EEG recommends that the DOE withdraw the Chapter 5 submission, and resubmit it after (1) data to be included has been collected and analyzed, (2) the document has been rewritten to conform to CAG and other EPA expectations, and (3) full editorial and technical reviews of the contents by cogniunt personnel have been performed.

ftobert H. Neill Director

RHN:BAW:ss Enclosure

Aalcllaml IO R.H. Neill IO

O.E. Diala 1.Aaer, 7121196

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION GROUP REVIEW OF CHAPfER 5 OF W1PP COMPLIANCE APPLICATION (OOFJCA0-96-2056)

Chapter 5 of the CCA, •Quality Assurance", published as DOFJCA0-96-2056, is an incomplete document which fails to adequately support compliance with the 40 CFR 194.22 QA requirements and the expectations for QA in the Compliance Application Guidance (CAG). This issuance of Chapter 5 appears to have been premature; material is missing, adequate technical and editorial review were apparently not performed, and there seems to have been no attempt to compare its contents against the EPA's criteria for completeness, or comments on the DCCA version of the chapter.

The following commentary is not a line-by-line review of Chapter 5, as the document is incomplete, and more general concerns should be addressed before such a review could be considered useful. Examples are randomly selected, to show the types of corrections necessary rather than a complete list of them.

Chapter 5 Is an incomplete draft.

Chapter 5 as received by EEG on June 6, 1996, is a draft that would have been more appropriate in the DCCA. The document must be considered a draft, rather than a submittable document for compliance, as informati.on has been replaced by "placeholders". The first page (5-1) has the following statement in the middle of a paragraph:

This program of audits and surveillances assesses the adequacy and effectiveness of implementation of the individual QA programs. [Placeholder for conclusions concernin& the adequacy and effectiveness of implementation of the CAO and SNL QA prognum]. (Emphasis in the original)

There are many such placeholder statements to be found in the document. Page 5-16 has one, page 5-42 has two, page 5-43 has one, 5-44 has two, 5-46 has two, 5-47 one, 5-50 three, and there may be others. The apparent reason for many of the placeholder statements is that QA activities necessary for production of a QA chapter in the CCA have not yet been completed and adequately analyzed. The placeholder quoted above, for instance, probably is due to external audits which had been scheduled, but not completed, of SNL (performed in May and June 1996) and CAO (scheduled for July 15-19, 1996) prior to the writing of Chapter 5. Other placeholders (on p. 5-46 and 5··47) are related to peer review qualification of data; these peer reviews are still in progress.

The results of these QA activities may not always support the conclusions already drawn in Chapter 5. The effectiveness of SNL's QA program was recently adjudged as "marginal" by a CAO-contracted audit, and if the DOE intends to use the results of the audit in the CCA

1

then some sort of updating activity should be performed to show that the program is adequate.

Note that neither WID nor any of the generator sites were included in the placeholder statement quoted above. Adequacy and effectiveness of QA at these sites, too, was yet to be established at the time of publication of the document, though major audits of INEL (effective, except for ineffective ANL-West) and Rocky Flats (marginal) were performed in late 1995.

In addition to •placeholder• statements, other information to be used for compliance is yet to be obtained. For example (from p. S-3 and S-4, Section S.1.1):

The 'IWBIR was prepared in compliance with the CAO QAPD and was audited by CAO QA on September Sand 6, 1996.

Since the EEG is reviewing Chapter 5 in June, 1996, it is not meaningful to take credit for an audit in September, 1996. The version of the TWBIR to be audited hasn't been published yet, either; and the version of the CAO QAPD with which it apparently is to comply was not officially transmitted to TRU-waste personnel (or EEG) until after Chapter 5 was received (distribution memo dated June 13, 1996, from CAO's QA Manager).

Until the evidence to be used in Chapter 5 has been appropriately gathered and properly analyzed, the chapter can only be considered an incomplete draft.

Chapter 5 was not adequately reviewed by the DOE.

In the above quotation, the applicable version of the CAO QAPD is not listed, nor is the version number of the 'IWBIR. Document version numbers are not to be found for most (if not all) documents in the chapter, which makes verification of many statements impossible.

Other editorial and technical review mistakes exist.. Descriptions of the •graded approach" appear in two different places (p. 5-2 and 5-23); these provide different (though partially overlapping) sets of criteria for grading activities. Section 5.1.2 •Environmental Monitoring, Monitoring of the Performance of the Disposal System and Analysis Activities• (p. 5-6) indicates that no monitoring need take place prior to closure, in direct contrast to the §194.42(c) requirement that monitoring of critical parameters commence before waste emplacement begins. The section concerning software (5.1.4, p. S-77 ff) considers only PA software as necessary for compliance activities, though software used in waste characterization and for site activities carried out by WID are also used for compliance with 40 CFR 194. In Section 5.3.7, Document Control (p. 5-28), WID's principal procedures for document control are not listed--and WID has been tasked with the ultimate storage of all pertinent documents to the project. Section 5.3.9 (p. 5-29) offers no objective evidence (in the form of governing procedures) to show that identification and control of items is required to be performed, though all the other sections of Section 5.3 have such references.

2

In Section S.1.3,(p. S-6), it is asserted that since the EPA had reviewed site selection and site cbaracteriz.ation QA programs during examination of the 1989 No-Migration Variance Petition (NMVP) that the QA for site selection and characteriz.ation should be considered satisfactory. This is untenable on several grounds, not the least of which is that the NMVP is for compliance with 40 CFR 268. 6, which has no requirement that QA programs must comply with the 1989 versions of NQA-1, NQA-2 Part 2.7, and NQA-3, as is found in 40 CFR 194.

Section S.4.2 (Page S-44) illustrates several potential deficiencies. The initial paragraph contains a statement which includes placeholders, as follows:

A primary result of the qualification of the SNL QA audit and surveillance programs [Placeholder] the determination of which performance assessment data provided by SNL subcontractors [Placeholder) collected under an approved QA program and which data requires additional qualification.

Unfortunately, without the placeholders, the statement has effectively no useful semantic content, and cannot be analyzed in relation to the n~quirements of 40 CFR 194.

The next paragraph describes the change from the SNL QAPD revision P to revision R. Some mention of revision Q would prevent possible confusion.

Under the heading •Scientific Investigation• (still Section 5.4.2, p. 5-44), the statement is made that

QAP 20-2 was added to address scientific notebooks. Previously, scientific notebooks were rarely used ...

Notebooks are usually considered the basic documentation of scientific work, and the DOE may want to reconsider the phrasing of the second part of the statement.

The results of SNL Audit IA 95-03 (August, 1995) are reported in Section 5.4.2.1, Data Qualification (pp. S-44, 45):

The audit resulted in 14 findings in the areas of calibration, procedures, training, experimental planning, test reconis, and equipment and data acquisition ... The audit concluded that, with the exception of the Corrective Action Requests, there was evidence that SNL QA controls were in place and that they were adequate and effectively implemented.

Given the breadth of the Corrective Action Reque.sts(CARs), what areas were left to show adequate and effective implementation of the QA controls? In this presentation, it seems as if the program was considered adequate and effective regardless of the audit findings. Chapter 5 also lacks discussion of the process used by audit teams for determining the effectiveness of QA programs; if adequacy and implementation effectiveness statements are

3

included in the CCA, then the process by which these statements are generated should be described.

Almost no document in Chapter S is properly referenced. QA documents are listed without version numbers; published aovemment documents are listed without document numbers (p. S-6, •Background Document ... •; p. S-14, •ooFJAlbuquerque Operations Manual•), or without even a title (p. S-11, •This task was documented in a DOE Headquarters report ... "). None of these documents appear in the bibliography for the chapter, either.

Anything more than a rudimentary review by personnel familiar with the overall WIPP project and QA would have uncovered at least some of these deficiencies. In a QA chapter, the DOE bas failed to adequately perform one of the basic principles of QA--review of documents. Such an omiuion creates an erroneous impression of the quality of QA activities that CAO bas developed in the last few years.

Chapter 5 does not addre9 CAG expectations.

While it is not a compliance requirement for DOE to fulfill the expectations in the Compliance Application Guidance (CAG EPA 402.-R-95-014), the guidance was developed to assist the EPA in determining if the CCA is complete (CAG, page 1). The document goes on to state (also page 1 ):

A completeness determination is a threshold determination that the application warrants further scrutiny, so that EPA, DOE, and the public do not invest major resources in a rulernaking proceeding for an incomplete document will likely (and justifiably) consider the CCA incomplete until these expectations are met.

There is no evidence in Chapter S that the expectations in the CAG were considered during the development of the chapter. The DOE sent out Chapter 5 with a matrix which matches the requirements of 40 CFR 194 QA requirements: with the chapter, but makes no reference to the CAG expectations. There are no statements, references, or sections within Chapter 5 that echo language or structure unique to the CAG. An attempt to verify that the five expectations on page 18 of the CAG were met in Chapter S produced febrile results-only one of the five could be considered to be completely met. These five expectations, and the result of the EEG's verification attempt, are as follows:

1. That DOE top tier QA documents demonstrating commitment to NQA-1 (1989), NQA-2 Part 2.7 (1990), and NQA-3 (1989) be included in the CCA. Revision 1 of the CAO QAPD (if Revision 1 will be the version used for the CCA-see expectation 3) could be said to meet this requirement by itself, and evidence in Chapter 5 is that this document will be included in Appendi:it QAPD.

This expectation is also the heart of the 40 CFR 194 QA requirements, and it is not likely that it was included as a CAG consideration.

4

2. That DOE principal contractor top tier QA documents, and a list of all top tier documents of subcontractors performing quality affecting activities as listed in §194.22(a)(2), be in the application. Appendix QAPD will apparently include the SNL and WID QAPDs, but Chapter S includes no listing of subcontractor documents as specified, nor the top-tier documents for generator sites, and even the TRU-QAPD may not be included in Appendix QAPD (it is not so referenced in Chapter S).

3. 1bat the effective dates the documents from expectation 2 were in conformance with the NQA requirements be listed in the application. No effective dates were listed for QA documents in Chapter S; version numbers were not even given.

4. 1bat a list of quality affecting activities and items important to demonstration of complianc:e be included in the CCA. No such list is in Chapter S.

S. 1bat the rationale used in developing the list for expectation 4 be given. No list, no explanation.

Chapter 5 is manifestly not complete according to the criteria in the CAG, nor, it seems, has DOE made an attempt to meet the completeness for QA as identified in the CAG.

The Included appendix was poorly presented.

In its mailing of Chapter 5, the DOE included a separate bound document, "Appendix RES", dated May 10, 1996. The letter of transmittal indicates that

This appendix contains excerpts and summaries of specific references used to support CCA conclusions within the chapter. It will allow reviewers to quickly find the specific portions of referenced documents when tracing the logic of the CCA 's conclusions.

EEG could find no specific references in Chapter :5 to Appendix RES, nor was the rationale for the contents of Appendix RES apparent. The appendix consists of brief abstracts from the NQA standards and two NUREG position papers (1297, Peer Review, and 1298, Qualification of Existing Data). The bibliographic: references for the documents duplicate the bibliography in Chapter 5. All five documents are readily available as published documents. The abstracts, when pertinent, are not so lengthy t.hat they could not have been quoted directly in Chapter s.

Appendix RE-5 appears to either be an unnecessary addition to the CCA, or perhaps another "placeholder" into which filler material was inadvertently placed. In any case, it is apparent that the Appendix as it exists is not a well-thought-out addition to the CCA.

Two referenced appendices were not included.

In contrast to Appendix RE-5, two other appendices are referenced in Chapter 5, but neither of these were sent with the document. •Appendix QAPD" is referenced throughout much of

5

the chapter, and would seem to include the current QAPDs for CAO, SNL, and WID, but no complete listing of the contents is included. These documents are expectations in the CAG, along with other top-tier documents (see discussion of CAG requirements above).

•Appendix AUDIT• is said to contain results of internal audits and surveillances of the WID QA program, and lists of both internal and external audits and surveillances of the CAO, WID, and SNL (Section S.4.4); whether generator site assessments are included as a part of ·cAo· is indeterminate.

All references to Appendix AUDIT appear on the last page of Chapter 5 (p. S-Sl). For such an Appendix to have real meaning, specific audits contained in it should be referenced by Chapter S as objective evidence that requirements have been met.

Without these appendices, the effectiveness of Chapter S cannot be completely as.sessed. Appendices QAPD and AUDIT should have been transmitted with the chapter.

Chapter S falls to address EEG's comments on the DCCA.

The EEG's comments on the DCCA QA chapter as published in EEG-61 (March, 1996) are also only partially addressed in Chapter 5. EEG (EEG-61 p. 5-2) suggested that the QA chapter should have addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 194.22, and Section 5.1 of Chapter 5 does address the requirements from 40 CFR 194.22(a), including the overriding requirement for conformance with the applicable NQA standards (NQA-1, NQA-2 Part 2.7, and NQA-3). However, 40 CFR 194.22(b) requires that:

Any compliance application shall include information which demonstrates that data and information collected prior to the implementation of the quality assurance program required pursuant to paragraph (a)(l) [the requirement for the NQA standards] of this section have been qualified in accordance with an alternate methodology, approved by the Administrator or the Administrator's authoriz.ed representative, that employs one or more of the following methods: peer review ... ; corroborating data; confirmatory testing; or a quality assurance program that is equivalent in effect to ... [the NQA standards].

Chapter 5 describes the processes used for data qualification by SNL (Section 5.4.2.1 and following sections, beginning on p. 5-44), but does not include information which demonstrates that the Administrator has approved of these methods.

As in the DCCA QA chapter, Chapter 5 emphasizes the QA program as it exists in 1996 over QA of the data gathering and processing activities which make up a major part of 40 CFR 194 requirements; this was another principal concern expressed in EEG-61. The CCA QA chapter should provide objective evidence that information utilized by the other sections of the CCA fulfills the quality requirements in 40 CFR 194. In places this is partially achieved; Table 5-4 contains a list of data packages qualified by the Independent Review Teams in the Qualification of Existing Data proce..~ under SNL's Quality Assurance

6

Procedure 20-3, but does not explain where and how these packages arc used, and their importance to compliance, nor are any references <lr guidances provided that would allow confirmation of the table of contents.

Chapter 5 fails to adequately addreg EPA's comments on the DCCA.

The DOE has failed to completely address the EPA general comments on the QA chapter as provided in the enclosure from EPA's Larry Weinstock to CAO's George Dials dated October 31, 1995 (pp. 3 & 4). The EPA stated that:

A number of assertive statements intended t.o describe the current status of the program are made without substantiation, including statements regarding training records, calibration records, and document and record control procedures. Objective evidence should be presented which demonstrates the successful implementation of these and other aspects of a quality assurance program for the WIPP. Examples of the evidence of implementation may include approved governing documents, implementing procedures, implementing plans and timetables, audits, surveillance, and verification reports, history of corrective actions, and the effective dates of program implementation.

Some of the governing documents, some of the procedures, and some of the effective dates of program implementation can be found in Chapter 5. However, many more assertive statements arc to be found in Chapter S than were in the DCCA QA chapter, and objective evidence for them is not presented. A few examples follow: Section 5.1.6.2 (p. 5-11), •Original Repository Design•, states that •All changes are approved by technically qualified individuals•, but no evidence is supplied for the statement. Section 5.3.8 (p. 5-28), ·control of Purchased Items and Services•, states that •Prospective suppliers are evaluated and selected on the basis of documented criteria•, and eight bullets list other procurement controls said to be in place. However, only WID implementing documents are provided as evidences for the section, and these are for •Receipt Inspections• and ·Source Inspections• (which may cover two of the eight bullets). The section does not reference the missing appendices, which might possibly include more objective evidence.

1be DOE also seems to have made only a cursory attempt to address the more specific comments the EPA provided on the QA Chapter of the DCCA (transmitted as pp. 39-42 of the January 30, 1996 letter from Weinstock to Dials). For example, the first specific comment states in part, •The DCCA should have specified the roles of EM-I, EM-20, and EM-30•. While Chapter S's •0rganiz.ational Interfaces• chart (Figure 5-3, p. 5-21) shows EM-1 and EM-30, EM-20 is still not listed. The same EPA comment also implies that the organiz.ations that conduct QA audits of contractol"s and waste generator sites should be listed; they aren't. Another EPA comment indicates that evidence substantiating that all workers were properly trained should be included; it wasn't.

The inclusion of the •Organization Interfaces• figure, which was not in the DCCA, implies

7

that the EPA's comments were considered on some level. However, it also seems obvious that no line-by-line check to make sure that concerns raised by EPA comments were addressed wu made. A search for a random sample of three other EPA comments--lack of objective evidence for control and maintenance of QA records, missing data quality indicators for the wute characterization program, and a need to address software reporting, correction, and implementation of requirements--shc,ws that only the last of these is included in Chapter S.

Chapter S apparently circumvents CAO's own QA program.

The weaknesses described above, in a chapter concerning QA, are apparently due to circumvention of the DOE's own QA program. CAO Management Procedure (MP) 4.4, Revision 0, dated April 19, 1996, states (Section 3. 1. l) that

Before a document is produced, the re.questor should evaluate the need, end use, cost-effectiveness, intended audience, duplication of effort, regulatory and technical requirements, and any external organization's requirements or agreements related to the document.

MP 4.4 also establishes review processes, which are to be in performed in accordance with MP 4.2.

Recommendation

1be DOE should consider developing not only Chapter 5 but all of the CCA under the requirements of the CAO QAPD, Revision 1. A solid quality assurance program is of little utility unless work is performed under its control.

8

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION GROUP

----------------------AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFRAMATIVEACTION EMPLOYER -7007 WYOMING BOULEVARD, N.E.

SUITE F-2 ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87109

(505) 828-1003 FAX (505) 828-1062

55th QUARTERLY MEETING

Environmental Evaluation Group

July 25, 1996 Santa Fe

Providing an independent technical analysis of th1" Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPPJ, a federal transuranic nuclear waste repository.

TASK FORCE ACTIVITIES SINCE LAST QUARTERLY:

* CONTINUED MONTHLY :MEETINGS OF THE TASK FORCE'S WIPP WORKING GROUP

WORKING GROUP COMPRISED OF KEY STAFF OF TASK FORCE:MEMBERCABINETAGENCIES

PRIMARY FOCUS: STATE OF NEW:MEXICO'S WIPP TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAM

* CONDUCTED A PUBLIC :MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE IN SANTA FE ON MAY 2, 1996 (DRAFT MINUTES AVAILABLE)

* CONDUCTED A PUBLIC :MEETING OF THE WIPP :MEDICAL WORKING GROUP IN ALBUQUERQUE ON APRIL 23, 1996

* WIPP INFORMATION EXCHANGE

PARTICIPATED IN A :MEETING OF DOE'S TRANSPORTATION EXTERNAL COORDINATION (TEC) WORKING GROUP IN PITTSBURGH ON JULY 16-18; DISCUSSED SAFETY PROTOCOLS FOR WIPP SHIP:MENTS

DELIVERED A PRESENTATION DURING THE ORIENTATION SESSION FOR NEW TEC/WG 1\lfEMBERS THAT COVERED THE WIPP TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAM

2

TASK FORCE ACTIVITIES SINCE LAST QUARTERLY: (CONTINUED)

* WIPP LAND WITHDRAW AL AMENDMENTS ACT

PREPARED SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE SCHAEFER AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1663 (SKEEN BILL) FOR DISTRIBUTION TO TASK FORCE & THE 10 WIPP CORRIDOR STATES IN THE WESTERN GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION

PROVIDED COMMENTS TO N.M. CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION ON THE SCHAEFER AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1663 (LETTER OF MAY 3, 1996)

* WIPP LAND MANAGEMENT

*

COORDINATED/PARTICIPATED IN A MEETING (JUNE 26, 1996) BETWEEN DOE-CAO AND NEW MEXICO STATE AGENCIES ON WIPP LAND MANAGEMENT

A DRAFT OF A DOE/NM AGREEMENT FOR ENHANCING COMMUNICATIONS/ COORDINATION ON WIPP LAND MANAGEMENT ISSUES WAS REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED

WIPP PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (PA)

PARTICIPATED IN A STATE/DOE CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION MEETING ON ACTINIDE DISTRIBUTION COEFFICIENTS (Kd VALUES) FOR WIPP PA)

PROVIDED COMMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE OF EEG AND THREE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS, IN CORRESPONDENCE DATED JULY 3, 1996

3

*

WIPP TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAM

WESTERN GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION (WGA) WIPP TRANSPORT SAFETY PROGRAM ThJPLEMENTATION GUIDE

COOPERATIVELY DEVELOPED BY WGA (10 WESTERN WIPP CORRIDOR STATES) AND DOE-CAO

ADDRESSES ACCIDENT PRE\TENTION, EMERGENCY RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS, AND PUBLIC INFORMATION/ PAR TICIP A TI ON FOR THE WIPP SHIPPING CAMPAIGN

UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED BY WGA AT THEIR DECEMBER 1995 ANNUAL MEETING

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXECUTED BETWEEN WGA AND DOE; ENDORSES THE PRINCIPLES, APPROACHES, AND PROCEDURES IN THE GUIDE

* WESTERN GOVERNORS' WIPP POLICY RESOLUTION

SUPPORTS THE TIMELY OPENING OF THE WIPP PROJECT IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

CALLS FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS RESOLUTION OF WIPP LAWSUITS SO THAT SUIT ABILITY OF THE REPOSITORY CAN PROCEED WITHOUT DELAY

ENCOURAGES DOE TO SEEK SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO REACH FULL-SCALE OPERATIONS AS QUICKLY AS SAFETY/COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS ALLOW

4

WIPP TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

* WIPP PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORT: 1996

WIPP "OPEN HOUSES" HELD IN LAS VEGAS, NM; PUEBLO OF NAMBE; PUEBLO OF POJOAQUE; SANTA FE; LOS ALAMOS; PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO; SPRINGER; AND WAGON MOUND

BRIEFINGS ON N.M. WIPP TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAMTOALBUQUERQUELOCALEMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE; PUEBLO OF TESUQUE; LAS VEGAS CITY COUNCIL; SAN MIGUEL COUNTY COMMISSION; WAGON MOUND VILLAGE COUNCIL; AND MORA COUNTY COMMISSION

* WIPP EMERGENCY RESPONSE EXERCISES

AT LEAST TWO PER YEAR SCHEDULED FIELD EXERCISES IN 1996: 1) ALBUQUERQUE EXERCISE (WIPPTRAX 96-1) HELD

ONMAY31 2) MORIARTY EXERCISE (WIPPTRAX 96-2) SCHEDULED

FOR EVENING OF AUGUST 27 3) LAS VEGAS EXERCISE (WIPPTRAX 96-3) SCHEDULED

FOR NOVEMBER

* WIPP TRAINING

ALL LEVELS OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING IS CONTINUING ON A REGULAR BASIS

5

* AUGUST 14

* AUGUST27

* SEPTEMBER 6

* SEPTEMBER 9-11

* SEPTEMBER 11

* SEPTEMBER 12

* OCTOBER 14-18

UPCOMING EVENTS

NEW MEXICO WIPP PUBLIC AWARENESS "OPEN HOUSE" IN RA TON

FULL-SCALE WIPP EMERGENCY RESPONSE FJELD EXERCISE IN MORIARTY

MEETING OF THE RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMITTEE IN SANTA FE

MEETING OF THE WGA TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP FOR WIPP TRANSPORT IN PORTLAND

NEW MEXICO WIPP PUBLIC AWARENESS "OPEN HOUSE" IN ELDORADO

NEW MEXICO WIPP PUBLIC AWARENESS "OPEN HOUSE" IN GALISTEO

REGIONAL '-'TIPP/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION SYMPOSIUM AT ALBUQUERQUE CONVENTION CENTER

6

DOE/EEG/NMED QUARTERLY: July 25, 1996

(Status Report since April 24, 1996)

NMED/DOE-OB/WIPP

I. Environmental l\lonitoring/Sampling:

A) Biotics - Brandey Lake Catfish B) Groundwater - WQSP-5 (down :gradimt &.. WIPP Site)

Exhaust Shaft Boreholes, Eu.mt St ft S-p C) Surface Water -D) Sediment -E) Soils - SWMU OIUS (ERDA 9~ ~"WMlJ .OA (Porta Camp) F) Air - Installed u indepmdmt i.. -.Nole air sampler located at

the WIPP Far Yleld

A) Received numerous calls from stakeholders concerned with the lead contamination in S400 drift and Exhaust Shaft. AIP staff' informed stakeholders that we have verified lead is present, but unfair comparisons are being made with drinkinc water standards. Data is being QAJQC'd using high ionic brine information and AIP staff' will continue to verify data, contaminatien boundaries, and DOE's progress on this issue

B) Site Specific Work Plan completed and copies were distributed to groups who commented

C) Observed emergency spill ~~ponse during a simulated drum puncture

D) Borehole Verification:

The following actions were assigned as a result of a borehole seals meeting with CAO, CT AC, WID, and Stoller:

WID: 1) Supply the applicable secti&n of regulations that apply to borehole drilling prior to 6-75

2) Supply H-19 well information

NMED: 1) Determine what information is needed for verification of data compliance for early (pre 1975 boreholes)

2) Determine regulations and regulatory agency that apply to non-producing shafts such as those at the WIPP Site (Preliminary verbal indications are that the State Engineer Office is responsible. Requested an written determination on regulations and regulatory agency that applies to plugs and ground water isolation in non-producing shafts).

CAO/Sandia: Provide borehole history information on the NMED list of wells (ref. NMED letter to CAO dated 4-23-96)

BOREHOLE PLUG DATABASE: Created by NMED to merge with ArcCad (GIS Database). All information will be verified and confirmed. Information of interest will include hole size, casing size, cement volumes and depths covered by cement plugs.

Collected split samples on Solid Waste Management Units OOIS (ERDA 9) and OOJA (Porta Camp) to analyze for Total Metals per NMED/HRMB request.

Presented NMED/DOE-OB Work Pl.an to Steve Kouba - Environmental Comoliance and Support I\/\.~ (. \

~"'QJ:_,~~ - ,. ~·~ ,"t tJ(pJ__ s I G ~ ~t~~~ I

- --- • ~ , I ' - ':': - .. -...

"i - :-.1 ~

'WESTERN , GOVERNORS'

1

ASSOCIATION I

Mid1 .. 1:l 0. l.t.nvirr Governnr of Utih

Chair~iun

F. Rcnj~min Nclsun G<'W:r:v1r of N(:brJ.•:.W.

\/i1·('. Ch~1rmJn

Jo1m"-~ M. Souby f.y,,cuciv• lJir•Llut

Dcn\'cr~

GOO 17r!i Sm:et S.11r~ i705 South !uwu

Urn,,.,, Cr1lnr:1d,-. R0202·''1~2

{j(Jj'1 1.i~.l-9J7A

l-J..:4 (:;o;) 534-7309

\•;.'a.1hini:;ton, D.C.; 400 ~. C.!'itul S:r.:cr, N.W

Sui1<: J/n w, .• 1i111[!.to11, n c. 20001

(202) (;2'i 5,;02 l~x (202) 62·i· TiO!

wc;A, DOE Sign \lemol'andum of Ag1·eement for Sufo Sltlpnu.·nts tu \YIPP

FO({ 1\1\ll•:l)LATI·: IH:I .l·:.ASL !\fon.:h 28. 1996

Contact: 1,aren Deike (303) 623-9378

Den\·el'--Nehraska Clov. Hen Nelson, Chaimian of the \\'estet'1l Gov..:mors' A-:;soi.:ialion. and S..:cr..:lary ofEn..:rgy HaL..:l O'L..:ary ha\'..: sign..:d a menH')t'andttm of ag1·eement (')n ho"'' transttrnnic radi()active waste will he shipp..:d lo lh..: Was!..: Isolation Pi!ol Plan! n..:ar Carlsbad. N.~I.

Th..: ugr..:..:m..:nt stnt..:s hov•, th..: D..:purtm..:nt of En..:rgy \\ill U.':i..: r..:gional protocols lo sa1:.:ly lransporl transuranic wast...: lo th..: \VIPP. \\hich is sd1..:dul..:d tl°) hegin 1·eceiving waste in April 1998. ·me prncedut'es wet'e developed jointly by w..:st..:m gov..:mors and DOE.

Th..: m..:moramlum of agr • .:..:m.:nt is i.llt..:mkd to ..:nham:..: th..: sal'.,.;ty of tran!->uranic wa!->te transpo1t; end,)rse the principles and procedures contained in lh..: \V..:sl..:m Gov..:mors' Association \VIPP Transporlalion Sa1:.;1y Program Implementation ( iuide; and em:ul'e Ct)mmtmication on transuranic and nuclear \\asti.; lrnn:sporl<ition is:sli..:s ctmong \\i.;sti.;rn govi.;mors. th..: S...:1,:1...:tnry of En..:rgy and the manage1· (.,fthe 1)01•:-Carl»had Area Offo.:::e.

'111e program addresses such areas as accident prevention, dri\·e1· and \'dud..: sa1:.;ty . ..:m..:rg..:ncy r..:spond..:r trauung. sa1:.: parking and public involv..:m..:nt. Managing lh..: sal;,; lransporl<1tion of \\ask to lh..: \VIPP is th..: joint responsihility of federal, state, local, and tt'ihal go\·emments.

"Om· S()al is t(') ha\·e eve1·y one ()f the estimated 11,000 shipments of nw.:l..:ar was!..: lo \VIPP b..: routi.11...: and un..:v..:ntfol." N..:lson said. ··Ai lh..: sam..: time, westem gt)\·enHws ai·e Ct)mmitted t(') ensuring that apprnpl'iate !->tate, lo..:;al and tribal p..:rso1u1d ar..: prop..:rly 1lrau1..:d and ..:quipp..:d lo hand!..: any emergency that may arise.··

""I 11is memMandttm of agreement 1·eaftim1s the C(')mmitment made hy th..: DOE and th..: \\..:st..:m stal..:s lo ..:nsur..: th..: sai;,; tramporl of wast..: to th..: \.\'IPP;' said Carlshad Area Offic0e i\lanager (ie('lrge I·:. Dials. ···11,e we~tem gov..:mors ar..: ac.:liwly involv..:d u1 th..: \VIPP program. and tog..:lh...:r \\.,; ar..: ..:11-:;liring op..:ration oflh..: sakst possibl..: nud..:ar \\ast..: tra11spvrtat1011 syst..:m a\'ailahle."

--nwre--

\,\'(; .-\IDOi•: .-\gt'eement--2

The shipping corrido1· ctwerc:d hy the ag1·eement includes I I states: .-\ri7ona, C'alifomia, Colorado. Idaho. :\..:brask.a. ~..:vmL1. :\..:w M..:x.ii.:o. Or..:gon. rtah. \Vashinglon and \\"yoming.

The regional planning and dialogue pt't''ICess facilitated hy the Wes..tem C:o"l.·enh"lt's' .-\ss("lciation provid..:s m..:mb..:r slal..:s and DOE with lh..: m..:dmnism lo addr..:ss \\'IPP and olh..:r DOE lram;portalion issues. l·:ach state app(..,ints a representative tt') the \Vestem Chwemors' Association Technical Advisory Group for \\.IPP Transport. \\hii.:h shar..:s r..:sponsibilily with DOE for d..:vdoping and implementing principles, procedures, and agreements to addt'ess the '"sat~ and uneventfol lrnmpurlalion uf radioai.:liv.,; \\ast..:" through \\.,;st..:rn :-;taks.

Th..: \YIPP is a r..:posilory d..:sign..:d lo p..:nnan..:nlly dispos..: of lran;;uranii.: radioad1v..: \\ast..: left from the research and developmc11t of nuclear weapons. I .ocated 26 miles east of Carlshad, proj..:i.:l fai.:ilili..:s indud.,; disposal rooms ..:xi.:avat.,;d 2.1501;.;.,;t (n.,;arly half a mil.,;) und..:rground in an ancient, salt t\..,nnation. Transut'anic waste consists ()f clothing, tools, t'ags, and other such items i.:onlaminat..:d \\ilh lrai.:.,; amounts ofradioai.:tiv..: d..:m..:nls. most of \\hii.:h ar..: plutonium.

--.JO--

WESTERN GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION

£. Benjamin Nd.on -Governor of Nebrasb-

chaiiman

- Edward T. Schafer _ Governor of North Dakota

Vice OWnnln ··

- James M. Souby Executive Director

Hcadq~_ 600 l 7rh Saect

Suite 1705 South Tower Denver, Colorado 80202-5452

(303) 623-9378 FU (303) 534-7309

Wuhinpa. D.C. O&ice: 400 N. Capitol Saect. N.W.

_ Suite 370 . Washington. D.C. 20001

(202) 624-5402 ·Fax c202> 624-n67

Hazel R. O'Leary Secretary of Energy

January 26, 1996

U.S. Department of Energy Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avemue, S.W. Washington. DC 20585

Dear Madam Secretary:

' As Chairman of the Western Governors, I am forwarding to you the Memorandum of Agreement on the Reg_ional Protocol for the Safe -Transport of Transuranic Waste_to WIPP. The Western Governors unanimously approved this Agreement during their Winter Meeting in December;- · ·

The Western Governors" Association and the U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office negotiated this Memorandum of -

· Agreement to define coo1rdinated federal-state procedures for the transport of transuranic waste through the western states to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan~ in southeastern New Mexico. That Office has reviewed the Agreement and provided many valuable suggestions to improve the process.

-The Memorandum of Agreement formally puts into place the procedures in support of beginning shipments to the WIPP facility from western transuranic waste storage sites beginning in 1998. A copy of the Program Implementation Guide is enclosed which

_ describes the objectives and general approaches which would be implemented through the Agreement.

Two copies of the Agreement are enclosed with this letter for your _ review and signature. If you or your staff have technical questions, they should contact Jim Souby or Ronald Ross in the Denver WGA Office.. -

Sincerely,

& ~ ,_-,:;__ . E. Be~j~~~~n

Governor of Nebraska Chairman, WGA

nuc-wst\policy\rnoatrans.llr

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

WESTERN STATES and

U.£DEPARTMENTOFENERGY

REGIONAL PROTOCOL FOR THE SAFE TRANSPORT OF TRANSURANIC WASTE

TO THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT

Approved by the Western Governors .. · December 1, 1995

Findin'lS

Managing the safe transport of transuranic waste.from US Department of Energy facilities to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southeastern New Mexico is the joint responsibility of federal, state, local and tribal governments.

The Governors readopted Policy Resolution 92-004 in 1995 which states that "the objective of the Governors' Association is the safe and uneventful transportation of nuclear waste fi·om current temporary storage facilities to more suitable interim or permanent repositories. "

The potential risks of the transuranic waste and the complexities of transporting this waste to WIPP brought the ten western corridor states, the US. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Transportation together in 1988 to establish a set of principles and procedures for achieving this objective of "safe and uneventful transportation."

In 1989, the Western Governors prepared a "Report To Congress" describing the elements of a safe and uneventful transportation program. Jn 1991, the Western Governors' Association defined the programs and actions necessary to achieve a safe system, and meet the states' priorities for implementing these programs and actions in the publication ''A Report To The Governors and Secretary of Energy".

The Secretary of Energy agreed with the conclusions presented in the two reports, and directed the Department to enter into a five-year Cooperative Agreement with WGA. Working through the Cooperative Agreement, WGA, the western states and the Department of Energy developed a model program to prepare the states and local units of government, and the Department to support the WJPP campaign..

The Carlsbad Area Office of the US. Department of Energy is responsible for managing the WIPP program, including the transportation system. The DOE-Carlsbad Area Office. working with the Western Governors' Association and the ten corridor states, has agreed to conduct this shipping campaign employing standards and procedures negotiated through the Cooperative Agreement, many of which are above federal regulatory requirements. The elements olthis program are described in the "Western Governors' Association WIPP Transportation Safety Program Implementation Guide" (the Guide).

The Guide addresses the following elements of the transportation program:

Accident Prevention High-Quality Drivers and Carrier Compliance Independent Inspections Bad Weather and Road Conditions Safe Parking During Abnormal Conditions Advance Notice of Shipments Access to Information on Shipment Status

Emergency Preparedness Mutual Aid Agreements Emergency Response Plans and Procedures Training and Retraining Emergency Response Equipment

Medical Preparedness Route Designation Public Involvement and Information Program Evaluation

Purpose

The purposes of this Memorandum of Agreement are to enhance the safety of the transport of transuranic waste, to endorse the principles and procedures presented in the Guide, and to facilitate communication between the Secretary of the Department of Energy, the manager of the Carlsbad Area Office, and the western state governors on transuranic nuclear waste transportation issues.

Principles

We, the undersigned, pledge to each other as follows:

J. We endorse the regional planning and dialogue processes embodied in the Cooperative Agreement between the US. Department of Energy and the Western Governors' Association as

2

the most appropriate mechanism for addressing the safe and uneventful transportation ol transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and, where appropriate. other Department of Energy shipments through the western states.

2. We reaffirm the objective of the US. Department of Energy - Western Governors' Association process as being the safe and uneventful transportation of radioactive waste and mixed radioactive waste from current temporary storage facilities to more suitable consolidation and characterization facilities and/or permanent disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, if and when approved for receipt and disposal of these wastes.

3. We endorse the elements, principles and approaches contained in the "Western Governors' Association 1995 WJPP Transportation Safely Program Implementation Guide"for conducting this transportation program. This Guide is to be a living document reflecting the continuing agreements and actions taken by the Western Governors' Association, the Western Governors and their agency staffs, and the US. Department of Energy, as part of the regional planning and dialogue process.

Jmvlementation of Principles

To implement these principles, each Western Governor will:

• appoint a single state representative to the Western Governors' Association Technical Advisory Group for WJPP Transport. This representative shall be responsible for representing the state in developing and implementing principles, procedures, and agreements between the western states and the US. Department of Energy in addressing the "safe and uneventfal transportation of radioactive waste" through western states. The names of these contacts will be forwarded to the Western Governors' Association as part of the state funding pass through process; and

• provide copies of this Memorandum of Agreement to other state agencies with instructions to coordinate their planning, programming, and procedural development processes for radioactive waste and mixed radioactive waste transportation with the appropriate state representative.

To implement these principles the Secretary of Energy will:

• designate the manager of the Carlsbad Area Office as the Department's representative to the WGA Regional Transuranic Waste Transport Planning and Dialogue Process; and

• participate in and support the WGA Regional Transuranic Transport Planning and Dialogue Process through the Cooperative Agreement.

3

Review and Affirmation

The Guide and its procedural components will be reviewed by the WGA, the western states. and the DOE-Carlsbad Area Office annually to ensure the Guide and its elements continue to meet the objective of the "safe and uneventful transport of radioactive waste." The WGA Technical Advisory Group for WIP P Transport will provide assurance to the governors and Secretar_v of Energy annually that the Guide represents the principles and procedures for conducting this transportation program.

This Memorandum of Agreement is to be reviewed and reaffirmed by the Western Governors and the Secretary of Energy one year following a presidential election.

Secretary of Energy Chairman, Western Governors' Association

nuc-wst\mou-iii.doc

4

DATE

Junes

June6

July9

July IO

August 14

September 11

September 12

October 23

November 21

December 10

December 11

December 12

WIPP PUBLIC AWARENESS PROGRAM 1996 FINAL SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY OUTREACH1

COMMUNITY LOCATION ADDRESS/DIRECTIONS

Los Alamos Los Alamos Commwtity Center From Santa Fe: stay on Central Avenue as you 475 20th Street enter Los Alamos (don't turn on Trinity).

Corrunwtity Center is on left side at 20th Street. I :30 - 4:30 and 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. just past Post Office and next to Ashley Pond

San Ildefonso San Ildefonso Pueblo Tewa Visitors Center North from Santa Fe on 285; West on 502 at Pojoaque; follow signs lo Pueblo; Tewa Visitors Center on right.

Springer City Council Room From Santa Fe: take first exit off I-25 and follow Springer City Complex Main St. to 6th. Turn left on 6th Street (at 606 Colbert A venue Senior Center). After one block., turn right onto

Colbert.

Wagon Mound Wagon Mound Fire Department From Santa Fe: Exit highway at Wagon Mound, 600 Catron A venue Cross Frontage Road. RR tracks, Railroad Ave.

Right on Catron A venue. Fire Department is about 3 blocks down, on right

Raton Raton Convention Center Located just North of Raton High School, near 90 I S. 3rd Street the electric plant.

El Dorado Eldorado Fire Department

Lamy/Galisteo Galisteo Fire Station From Santa Fe to 285 south, south on Rt. 41 to Galisteo; tum left (at church about 6 miles from 285) onto County Road 33A (dirt road); follow around about 1/4 mile. Fire station on right, behind corrununity center.

Encino/Vaughn Vaughn Fire Department From Santa Fe: on right (west) side of Rt. 285; next to City Hall and the Bank. -

Roswell TO BE ANNOUNCED

Artesia TO BE ANNOUNCED

Carlsbad TO BE ANNOUNCED -Loving TO BE ANNOUNCED

1 Unless otherwise indicated, Open Houses ·will be held between 3:00 and 7:00 p.m.

For further information contact Heidi Snow or Chris Wentz of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals or Natural Resources Department at 505/827-5950.

As of May 30, 1996

' To: Chris Wentz From: Jon Lawritson 7-24-96 3:49pm p. 2 of 4

••

\\' .;sk:rn Go,·.;rnors · A<ssociation Resohnion 9() - 020

SPO!\:SORS: ( lm:e11lors Romer, I htt, and .lohnst)n SUBJECT: Timdy Op..:ning of th..: \Vast..: Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

A. BACl\:(;f{Ol.':'ID

Jun.; 24. 1996 ()mah a, N dwaska

1. Owr th..: past 45 y..:ars. th..: lTnikd Sta ks has d.;vdop.;d. produc..:d. and t..:skd nuckar weapons using a national network (lffadlities, including lJ.S. Depa1tment of l<nergy (DOE) sit..:s in six w..:st..:rn staks. i\s a r..:sult, larg..: quantiti..:s of radioa<.:tiw and hazardous chemical wastes have accumulated. The wastes now pose serious inuu..:diat..: and lung-t..:rm thr..:als tu th..: ..:1nirunm..:nt and th..: publi<.: h..:alth and :saldy.

2. Al DOE facilili..:s in w..:skrn slaks. millions of cubic i;.:.;1 oftransurmui.: wasks. sum.; mixed with hazardous chemical wastes, avvait pennanent disposal. \Vaste generated sin..:..: 1970 is in rdri..:vabk :storng..: fai.:iliti ... :s lo<.:at..:d at DOE :sit..:s around th..: \V..:st. More waste will he generated as the result of continuing weapons research, envirnnmental remediation, and the decommissioning and decontamination of aging fa.:iliti..:s.

3. Thi.: Wasli..: Isolation Pilot Plant (\VIPP) in Ni..:w l\.foxico is inkndi..:d to si..:rvi..: as a pe1·manent t·epositot'Y t{)r selected defense-related transuranic vrnstes. Although majo1· i.:onstrn<.:tion a<.:tiviti..:s at th..: \VIPP ar..: largdy compkk, th..: op..:ning of th.; fai.:ility ha.;; heen delayed hy a numhe1· of yet urn·esolved regulatory issues. Originally scheduled w op..:n in lat..: 1988, th..: WIPP may not b..: i1vailabk for disposal until 1998 at th..: earliest.

4. The WIPP I ,and Withdrawal Act (Puhlic I ,aw l 02-579) identified tlwse legal and administrntiv..: H(,.ltion.s 11..:(.l..:ssary to op..:n \VIPP. Th..: D..:partm..:nt ofEn..:rgy - Carlsbad Area Office has developed and implemented the Disposal Decision Plan to meet the applicable legislative and regulatm'Y requirements. The plan establishes (k1ohe1· 1997 as th..: d<1t;.; wh..:n th;,; S..:<.:r..:tary of En;,;rgy will mak..: a d..:<.:ision about wh..:th..:r to operate WIPP as a disposal facility. Hased on the findings of that decision, WIPP could bi..:gin ri..:c..:ivi11g 1.:ontact-hamlli..:d wast..: in April, 1998.

5. By April 1996. a llllmb..:r oflawsuits w..:n; Gkd to pr..:v..:nt th..: U.S. Environm..:ntal Protection Agency from issuing the criteria which WI PP must meet in order to d..:monstrnt..: it (,;<Ill sall.:ly dispos..: trnnsurarnl(.l wast..:, as wdl as oth..:r non-disposal related issues. This action will delay the I )epat1ment of Fnergy and the l·~oviromnental Proti..:dio11 i\.gi..:111.:y (EP i\.) from pro<.:i..:..:ding in a limdy ma1111..:r 011 si..:v..:ral of th..: activities necessat'Y to meet the decision date.

To: Chris Wentz From: Jon Lawritson 7-24-96 3:49pm p. 3 of 4

R..:solu!ion 96 - 020 Page 2

6. Th..: d..:anup. !ranspor!. and p..:rman..:n! disposal of radioa<.:!iv..: and lrnL.ardous <..:11..:mi<.:al \.vastes at DOI•: facilities are issues of vital co110em to the weste111 states. In r...:i.:ugnitiun uf th...: s1,;up...: ufth...: WH:s!...: prubl...:ms Hnd !h...: risl ... s th...:y pus...: !u !h...: publi1,; and the environment, the \Vestem <Jovemors have m·ged the President and Cong1·ess to !ak..: prompt ad1011 to ..:stablish a i.:omprd1..:ns1v..: national program (\VG.\. R..:solut1011 89-006).

At !hi.: timi.: of its plann..:d op..:ning, \VIPP will hav..: v..:ry limiti.:d i.:apa<.:ity to ri.:1.,;i.:i vi.: shipments from the generator sites, and the generator sites will have only a limited quantity of wast..: ..:hara<.:t..:ri:.:...:d and r..:ady for shipm..:nL This shipping/r..:..:..:iving capacity should he inc1·eased to foll scale as e"1'editiously as possihle, including the (.:Onstrudion of th..: 11.,;(.:.,;ssary TRUP ACT II (.:Olltain..:rs and gr..:at..:r quautiti..:s of wast..: characterized and prepared for shipment. As the only pennanent repository t<.w dd;.;ns..:-rdakd trausurnui(,,) wasks. th..: \VIPP is (.:ritii.:al to th..: su1.,;i.:..:ss ofth..: d..:anup effo11 sought hy the western govemors.

B. c;OVIO{NORS' POLICY STATWVll(NT

1. To r..:it..:ra!..: !h..: polii..:i..:s ofWGA R..:solu!ion 89-006, it is !h..: obj..:diw of !h..: w..:skrn gov..:mors to Si.:(.: Ur..:, through !hi.: ..:xp..:ditious r..:solution of outstaudmg t..:i.:hnii.:al. administrative, safety, and environmental issues, the earliest possihle opening of the \VIPP. Th..: w..:s!..:m gowrnors ari,; <.:onmii!kd to working <.:oopi,;rativdy with th..: Congress, DOI•:, and the l•:PA to achieve this ohjective.

2. The Westen1 (lovemm·s helieve that DOI•: and l•:PA must strictly comply \.Vith the provisions of!h..: WIPP Land Withdrawal A<.:t (Publi<.: Law 102-579) (LWA) to i.:nsuri.: that key issues relating to the opening and opet·ation ofthe WIPP are satisfactorily r..:solvi.:d. Thi.: \Vi.:sti.:m Gowmors urgi.: DOE and EPA lo di.:mons!ra!io: as i.:Xpi,;di!iously as possihle compliance with hoth the lettet· and intent of the WIPP I ;w A.

.1. The Westenl <Jovemo1·s strnngly encourage all patties to the lawsuits to seek i,;Xp..:di!ious r..:solution of !h..: kgal issuio:s and lo pro<.:i,;i,;d towards dd..:rmining !h..: suitability of \.VIPP as a disposal facility for lnu1<sura1li(.: wast..: without furthi.:r dday.

4. Thi.: \.V..:s!..:rn Gowmors strongly ..:n<.:ourng..: DOE and !hi.: 0.Lli<.:..: of l\Janag..:111..:nt and I ~udget to seek the resources necessary to reach fitll-scale shipping and receiving c..:apa1,;ity as quid<ly as sa1;,;ty and c..:omplianc,;i,; 1,;onsidi.:rntium; will alluw.

C. GOYERNO&s• MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE

I. WCJA shall convey this resolution to the appropriate memhers and committees of the

To: Chris Wentz

')

"''

-1.

From: Jon Lawritson 7-24-96 3:49pm p. 4 of 4

R..:solution 96 - 020 !'age J

Congr..:ss. th..: S..:<.:r..:tary of En..:rgy. Chainnan oflh..: Nud..:ar R..:gulatory Conunission. the Administrntot' of the l•:nvironmental Protection Agency, and all patties to the lawsuits rdl,;r..:m.:..:d h..:r..:in.

In a1,:1,:ordm11,:..: with th..: poli1,:y ..:stablish..:d by this r..:solution, th..: \VG,\ and its Technical Advisrn-y Clroup tl.w WIPP Transprnt are directed to work cooperatively with th..: Congr..:ss, DOE, NRC, and EPA Lo fa1,:ilita!.,; th..: ..:arli..:st possibk op..:ning of th..: \VIPP for disposal op..:rations through th..: prompt r..:solution of outstanding technical, administrative, safety, and environmental issues.

WCA is directed to monitMthe progress of meeting scheduled Wil'I' milc:stonc:s and r..:port to th..: \V..:skm govi..:rnors any d..:vdopmi..:nts that may dday its opi..:ning.

Exhaust Shaft - Water and Lead

7/24/96

Kent Hunter

Carlsbad Area Office

July 24, 1996

..... ISOLATION ..... ,, ~WA5"

~PY)> 1 ~

7/24/96

EXHAUST SHAFT • I 0 0 7 I Vl

OH 226 E312/S'400 IN MARKER BED J"OIA./6 FT DEEP

E-.300

~~;8;;;'400 ! ~ TOP Of' MARKER 3ED i n~i J"DIA./1'-6" DEEP (DRY) I . i i OH 225 I j E267/5400 I I TOP CF MARKER BED

-' L ;,:,,:~:~,- DEEP (PUMPING HERE)

o-5 IN MARKER BED

I I

I !

_j E-140

t

( 3"01A /5"-6" DEEP

I o' 0 "<j-

1 VlL 20' 0 20' 40'

MARKER BED IS 4'-5' BELOW THE FLOOR ANO 1'-2' THICK.

BOREHCUS WERE DRILLED IN 1993 TO DEWATER.

ORIGINAL BOREHOLE DEPTHS >'£RE 6' -o· DEPTH l.4EASUREMENTS RECENTLY TAKEN BY WIO ENGINEERING.

WASTE HANDLING SHAFT

S400 Boreholes

2

..

x --- x -x -

x - x -

--x

x x x x - x x - x x x x x x

--x -x x -'

x x x --x x

x /

_- x_-_- -_-_

x x

-

x x

x x x x x -

x -x x

Typical Room at

Experimental Horizon

x

18.0'

--

x

x x

x -x -

- x -x -

-x

x x x - x x x -

(5.5 m) ~'ii::::'~'~::S:S:~SS::s;:s.:::iS:S;:s:s;s x x x -.... ' ' ....... ' '

x -

-

-x

18.0' (5.5 m)

x "' --

x -

Typical Room at

Disposal Horizon

33.0' (10.1 m)

-x -x x x -

.... J'

x

x

)(

x

--

x -

x -x

13.0' (4.0 m)

x

-x -x

x

,_-::::x::::---::::---::::-x

x ~~;::;:

x

x x -

CLAY I

ANHYDRITE ·a· I CLAY H

ANHYDRITE • b" / CLAY G

CLAY F

x x x x x x x x x x

SCALE IN LEGEND INCREMENTS OF

FIVE FEET [] (1.5 m)

Halite

~ Anhydrite

till . Argillaceous

Halite

7/24/96

~ Polyholitic

Ho lite

[J Anhydrite Stringers

B Cloy Seam

~ NOTES:

MARKER BED 139

CLAY E

1. Distances ore averaged from representative co1ce hole logs ond shoft ond test room mc1pping. Actual distances may vary locally from ttiose shown.

2. Descriptions ore based on core hole dote, sh•aft mopi:iing, and visual inspection of exposures in underground drifts.

3. Percentages of orgilloceous material and polyholite are based an visual estimates from examination of drill core and exposures in the underground excavations. Sandia National Loborotories' measurements of insolubles from selected core were used os a point of reference.

Level

547 (167)

603 ~184~ 627 191

714 ~218~ 736 224

851 (259)

907 (276)

1354 {413)

1727 (526)

2146 (654)

EXPLANATION Sand and Sandstone

Mudstone and Siltstone

Anhydrite

EXHAUST SHAFT

Concrete Liner

'Key

Dune Sand and Caliche

Gatuffo and Dockum Group

Farty-niner Member Magenta Member

Tamariak Member

Culebra Member

Unnamed Member

Base of Key

Vaca Triste MB

MB 126

T

Upper Member

Mc Nutt Member

+ Lower Member

Dewey Lake Redbeds

Rustler Formation

Solo do Formation

'--------~'---- WIPP Facility Level

C:J Halite

~ Dolomite

~ Concrete

NOTES 1. All rock below the Dockum Group

are Permian in age.

2. All levels are measured from the collar at 3409 feet (1039 meters) above .MSL.

3. MB-Marker Bed

GGISllD.2

Generalized Exhaust Shaft Stratigraphy

7/24/96 WASTE

ISOLATION

PILOl ]~ PLANl ~

~IP..P ~

WASTE SHAFT

Concrete Liner

Level in feet (meters) \

538 (164)

596 (182l 621 (189

707 (215l 729 (222

&M (257)

900 (274) -~

1727 (526)

-- ---- - - - -

-_-_-_-_-_

-_-_-_-_-_

-

"'- - -,_-_-_-_-_-,,_-_-_-_-_-L----_-_-_-

.,__-_-_-_-_-1----_-_-_­"----_-_-_-i----­,_-_-_-_-_-

. ~'-."-..."-..."-...~

~ ----­~---_-_-_-

~Concntle Key

ums Sand ond CoJiche

-Gob.inc and Dockum C~up

Forty-Niner Member Mag<tnto Dolomite

Tom·llrisk Member

Cu!ebro Dolomite

Unn<11med Member

1-- Baue of the Key

Vaca Trista MB

MB 126

T Dewey Lake Redbedo

+ Upper Member

Mc Nutt Member

Lower Member

Rustler Formation

Solodo Formotfon

2150 (655) 2167 (660)

I ======I= ~;P ";a:~~e Level

2286 (697)

EXPLANATION Sand and Sandstone c=J Dolomite

Mudstone and Siltstone E3 Halite

Anhydrite ~ Concrete

~ CJ CJ

Shaft Sump

Bottom of Waste Shaft Sump

NOTES 1. All rocks below Dockum Group

ore Permian in age.

2. All levels are me<Jsured from collar ot 3-409 feet (1039 meter11) MSL.

~i. MB=Morker- Bed

Generalized Waste Shaft Stratigraphy

7/24/96 WASTE

ISOLATION

PllOl '~

~1PY~.E' ~

Water Sources

• Condensation

• Liner Leakage

..... ~-V'IASTE ~ ~ ISOLATION

PILOT '~

~P:P.Jr ~ 7/24/96 4

• •

Condensation

• Can produce large quantities but only during summer when relative humidity is high.

• Intake air contribution may reach 75% or more of water introduced when surface relative humidity is high, depending on amount of diesel equipment in use.

7/24/96 5

•

Liner Leakage

• Small, consistent flow first noted May, 1995. It may not reach shaft bottom except when ventilation flow rate is low or condensation rate is high.

• Leakage is technically insignificant.

• Ventilation reduced on weekends starting October 1994.

7/24/96 6

p-~wAm ~ .,. ISOLATION

PILOT '~

~iP?~~ ~

•

Liner Leakage

• Evaluating possible leakage from domestic and fire water systems.

• Precipitation infiltration and establishment of local hydrologic equilibrium. Large infiltration areas

• .., ... ... • • -.i• • ~ ~

ava11able in immediate v1c1n1ty.

7/24/96

1,,? ~VVASTE ISOLATION

~~p)J: U-V-U-0 7

Liner Leakage

• Muck at base of Exhaust Shaft removed and analyzed on 3/1/96.

• Catch basin installed on 3/12/96

7/24/96 8

P' ~~Arn ~ ~ ISOLATION

"W"' PILOT '~ '"""i P..P ,./$' ~

Lead

• First noted any lead - August, 1993

• First reached maximum concentration of contaminants for the hazardous characteristics in June, 1995, according to the RCRA Standard (40 CFR 261.24).

• Reported to NMED on 9/1/95.

7/24/96

~,-~VVASTE ~ ISOLAl 1or-J

~P._p)} ~ 9

Lead Sources

• Construction Materials (e.g. lead wool).

• Lead as impurity in galvanizing zinc on chain link mesh used for support.

Probably galvanizing due to high Zinc as well as Lead. Taking mesh samples for analysis and corrosion (leachate) tests.

7/24/96 10

...,, ~~ASTE

~.;;;;)) ~

..

Disposal of Brine

• Commercially disposed of at a permitted Treatment Storage Disposal Facility (TSDF) located at Deep Water, New Jersey.

7/24/96

,,..i,;::o ~ WAm ISOLATION

~pp)} ~ 11

Maximum Lead Concentrations Waste Shaft Sump

May 1995 - 4.7 tng/l

June 1995 - 8.1 mg/I

July 1995 - 12.0 mg/I

August 1995 - 10.4 mg/I

September 1 99 5 - 0. 9 3 mg/I

October 1995 - No Brine

November 1995 - No Brine

December 1995 - No Brine

January 1996 - 12.0 mg/I

February 1996 - 14.0 mg/I

March 1996 - No Brine

April 1996 - 1.4 mg/I

May 1996 - 2.3 mg/I

June 1996 - Samples Not Back

Samples taken from E-300 Shop in January 1996 and June 1996 < 0.02 mg/I

7/24/96 12

~, ~WASTE .... ISOLATION

~p;.)) ~

CARLSBAD AREA OFFICE NATIONAL TRU WASTE PROGRAM

Kent Hunter Assistant Manager

Office of National Transuranic Waste Operations Carlsbad Area Office

-: \ '

·I

(..) -z <( :a= a: <(

"' Cl)

::> a: ..... ·-"'

en CJ Cl)

Zo

>a

C)

ca -

c: -<

(a:

0 0

0 ...

..... ·-

·-"'

a: CL

tn .....

0 ca

1:::

I-w

Q

. ~

0 Cl)

0 .....

-c.

ca ..J

I--

a. "'

Cl)

<t en

a. c:

c: -

ca Cl)

z :=

t!: (!'

Q~

• • • t:c z

NATIONAL TRANSURANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Purpose

• Ensure TAU waste management programs and projects are integrated, coordinated, and prioritized

• Focus activities on maximum utilization of WIPP

• Facilitate implementation of Federal Facility Gompliance Act (FCC Act) site treatment plans and consent orders

• Provide generator sites annual guidance for effective operations planning

•

NATIONAL TRANSURANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

• Management plan will describe:

- Existing facilities baseline

- FFC Act Compliance/WIPP disposal scenario

- Alternative scenarios

• Resulting in a recommended configuration

- Near-term (less than five years) activities and site-specific projects

- Long-term programs

- Relative cost/disposal throughput benefit

"'

NATIONAL TRANSURANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

FFC Act Compliance/WIPP Disposal Scenario

• Designed to achieve compliance with the Ff C Act site treatment plans, consent orders and disposal at WIPP

• Inputs and process flow validated by the generator sites

• Assumes a WIPP operational life of 35 years, beginning April 1998

,,.

NATIONAL TAU CH WASTE RAMP-UP 2500·.-......~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

20000

(/) lo...

! 150Q) Q)

~ (.)

:.a 10009 :J 0

500o

Panel 1

WIPP CH WASTE HANDLING CAPACITY vs. WASTE READY TO SHIP

"°''vv 'l'l&s\e

~&c\\~

>(13(\()\\(\g C"

oead'l \0 sn\~ '\tJas\e P

o~::::::::::~~-,..~~~~.-~~~--.~~~~-,-~~~--J

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal Years

• First waste receipt April 1998

• Initial receipt rate of two trailers per week

• Receipt rate of four trailers per week by end of FY98

• Receipt rate of 10 trailers per week by end of FYOO

• Receipt rate of 17 trailers per week by end of FY02

• Three TRUPACT-lls per shipment.

• Twelve waste drums per TRUPACT-11 596R:6950

..

WIPP CH WASTE HANDLING CAPACITY vs. WASTE READY TO SHIP

250000 ---------------------------------------------------

200000

"' Lo s 150000 CJ)

:E 0 :g 100000 0

50000

WIPP Volume Capacity

Panel9

Panel&

Panel7

Panel&

waste Ready to Ship anel5

Panel4

Panela

Panel2

0 l e=:-== ' ' ' ' ' Panel 1 I 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033

Fiscal Years

519196

596A:6950a

NATIONAL TRANSURANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

FFC Act Compliance/WIPP Disposal Scenario

• Total waste volume disposed

- 88055 m3 contact-handled

- 3359 m3 remote-handled

- 91352 m3 total (WIPP authorized limit 175,600 m3)

• DOE transuranic complex model life-cycle cost estimate

- $27.38 (includes WIPP cost $7.18)

- Relative cost estimate based on new facilities at each major site

- Compared with $23.0B for on-site storage ~To"~

- Compared with $25.78 for on-~ite storage with LOR ~ treatment ~,

496R:61147• nso

NATIONAL TRANSURANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Issue

• Waste ready to ship (4/98) by site

- FFC Act Compliance/WIPP disposal scenarios are adequate

- Does not close the gap

• Only INEL and RFETS have the facilities to characterize, certify, and ship waste to WIPP

,~ro"~ (i] ... 1 ;

J:!1

496R:6947l ~tao1.,.</'

f? s CD

60000

50000

40000

:e 30000 u :a :I 0

WIPP CH Waste Handling Capacity vs. Waste Ready to Ship

Accelerated Case

WIPP Waste Handling Capacity Waste Ready to Ship

2 0 0 0 0 ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - - - - - .. - - .. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - -

10000

0 T-~~~-t-~~~-+~~~~+--~~~-+-~~~-+-~~~-+~~~~+-~~~4-~~~-+~~~--1

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal Years

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Complex Integration Scenario . 10 Year Projected CH Disposal Performance

Site Currentl Stored 'X> Dis osed Newl Generated 'X> Dis 1osed

Hanford 10709 21 'X> 1998 100'1<>

INEL 65376 16'1<> 25 100'X>

LANL 7775 lOO'X> 4666 lOO'X>

LLNL 264 lOO'X> 80 lOO'X>

NTS 654 lOO'X> 72

I 1 OO'X>

ORNL ... ,,,9/ lOO'X) 60 1 OO'X> lL 0

RFETS 1043 ] OO'X, ]0]42 I ] OO'Xi

SRS 9193 57'X> 6022 29'Xi

s s 337 lOO'X> 159 1 OO'Xi

Total 96647 30'X) 24976 I 82'Xi

(Volume in Cubic Meters)

N TWM PConfigBrief .ppl 7/18/96

NATIONAL TRANSURANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Staging Plan

order Number of Shipments

FY98 FY99

• INEL First shipper 22 74

• RFETS Second shipper 22 50

• LANL Third shipper 20 50

• SAS* Fourth shipper 0 26 -

Total 64 200

• WIPP capacity 64 200

*Potential 496R:69471

NATIONAL TRANSURANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Schedule

• Work in progress with DOE involvement

• Annotated outline complete

• Prototype draft with existing facilities baseline and FFC Act Compliance/WIPP disposal scenario May

• Draft for external review July

• Final draft August

• Final plan distributed September

496R:69471

\, . " .

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT FINAL NO-MIGRATI()N VARIANCE

PETITION

July 25, 1996

55th WIPP Quarterly Review Meeting

Department of Energy - Car]sbad Area Office

Final No-Migration Variance Petition

• Development of the NMVP

• DraftNMVP

• Summary of OSW Comm1~nts/Concems

• OSW Position on Major Issues

• Final NMVP vs. Draft Nl\tlVP

• Operational No-Migration Demonstration

• Long-Term No-Migration Demonstration

• Long-Term Compliance Results

• Conclusion

Development of the NMVP

August 1994 NMVP kickoff meeting

May 1995 Draft NMVP submitted

August 1995 Draft NMVP public notice

January 1996 OSW issued draft comments

May 1996 OS W issued final comments

June 1996 Final NMVP submitted

DraftNMVP

• Addressed compliance with 40 CFR §268.6 during disposal operations & closure activities

• Purpose was to initiate discussions with OSW on key topics and ensure completeness of Final NMVP

• Major assumptions brought forth

• Deviated from decisions set in Test Phase NMD

• j

Summary of OSW Corrunents/Concems

• Requests for additional detail

• Requirement for VOC monitoring

• Operational no-migration demonstration

OSW Position on iv1ajor Issues

• Point of compliance should be designated as the modeled point of highest conc1entration, 1. 5 meters above the ground, outside the ,exhaust shaft

• Disposal occurs upon waste emplacement

• Human Intrusion does not need to be modeled

Final NMVP vs. Draft NMVP

• Reflects approaches that are acceptable to OSW

• Includes revised operational no-migration demonstration

• Includes most current information and additional requested detail

• Includes long-term no-migration demonstration

Operational No-Migration Demonstration

• Air pathway is the transport media of concern

• Air dispersion modeling used to determine location of highest concentrations

• Proposed 40 CFR 264, Subpart S, used as guidance to develop HBLs for air

• Calculated VOC concentrations shown to be well below HBLs

Long-Term No-Migration Demonstration

• Unit boundary is Salado Formation bounded laterally by the WIPP Site Boundary (16 Sections)

• PA models developed by SNL used to model gas and brine transport

• Conceptual models and parameter values consistent with CCA, except for differences due to regulatory requirements

• Bounding calculations used to determine soil-based concentrations of voes

Long-Term Compliance Results

• Brine Transport - BRAGFLO model demonstrates that

contaminated brine does not leave the waste region

• Gas Transport - BRAGFLO model demonstrates that gas will

reach the unit boundary within 10,000 years

- bounding calculations show that resulting soil­based voe concentrations are orders of magnitude below HBLs

10

Conclusion

The DOE believes it has demonstrated, "to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no

migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit" during disposal operations, facility

closure, and 10,000 years after facility closure at the WIPP.

11

A SNAPSHOT OF THE CCA

WIPP PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

D.R. Anderson (6849), H. N. Jow (6848), M. G. Marietta (6821)

July 25, 1996

Cf) (]) ~ en <!)

Cd .D (]) ~

CJ) ::;j ...., 0: ti) ....... -·~ Cd d

oj..J

~ 0 I-

I l I .

..-····'

.,,.._. ______ ,. __ _ . I l .. l

-------..:....-~-.J

.... 0 ...-

• ...

0 0 .......

....

.... • o . ...

. .

(')

'o

0: -<l.) .

(j)

ro (l)

,..... (l)

0: (tj .......

,..... 0 r-

CD I

0 ,.... -q- LO

I I

0 0 ,..... ,.... It) '<I'

lri ~

\ It) -<O ~ a:>

~ 0

101

10°

10-1

a: A ~ 10-2

·­·-.c co .c 0 "-a. 10-3

10-4

LI ,-beJ (!\.5-fVY' ·I Total Releases, Overall Mean

100 Observations, 10000 Futures/Observation

I I I I I I I I I L---1

I I I I I I I I I 1 __ _

-5 10 -6

10 10-5 10-4 1 o-3 10-1 10

1 10° 10-2 10

2

Total Release, R

07/24/96 19:50:34

--- EPA Limit Overall Mean

·---- Upper 95th Cl ·---- Lower 95th Cl

CCA-064-0 DOE/CA0-96-2056

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

Figure 6-1. Methodology for Performance Assessment of the WIPP

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

WIPP FEP List

Out SO-R I Regulatic1n • Human activities • Performance measures

~·

Out SO-P I Probability 111///l • low probability

Consequence I Out SO-C -Low consequence ....._

over 10,000 years • Beneficial effect

FEPs Retained for Scenarios • Undisturbed Performance • Disturbed Performance

link to Figure 6-7 (Section 6.3)

Figure 6-6. Screening Process Based on Screening Classifications

CCA-117-0 DOFJCA0-96-2056

Screening Process

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

Disruptive event

Mining Deep Drilling

Scenario

i Undisturbed Performance, UP

Event does not occur

r Event oc::curs

l :

Event does Deep Drilling, E not occur

FEPs accounted for

in Performance Assessment calculations

Event occurs

i

CCA-118-0 DOFJCA0-96-2056

l Mining, M

Event does not occur

Event oc:curs

l Mining and Deep Drilling, ME

Figure 6-7. Logic Diagram for Scenario Analysis

Disturbed Performance, DP

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

en -"C ·-cc ca :::> ... tn GI C ;:; ·:;. en -::J ...

A~~~~~"'z~ I C"··. Sf; :::.t /I

Subsurface I Boundary ofl

Unclisturbed Performance

~ II [

··~ '<'····'~ . .::.--

cc ~ 0

Accessible I Upper Seal System -Environme"1 t

0 "C ca ca en

I: : : : I Anhydrite Layers a and b

!•· < ~1 Culebra

!I

Shaft >.>

MB138 Lower Seal System -

\

MB139 Access Drifts

I •3 Groundwater Flow and · Radionuclide Transport ,

CJ Disturbed Rock Zone

(Not to Scale)

f:\'·>+1 Repository and Shafts

tSSSJ Increase in Culebra Hydraulic Conductivity Due to Mining

Figure 6-8. Conceptual Release Pathways for Undisturbed Performance Scenario

CCA-009-0 DOEJCA0-96-2056

Cl) -"C ·c: c :::> ca en ... c CD ·­- >-Ul ;: = CD cc >

0

0 "C ca 'ii Cf)

..! :; ca 0

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

E2.

Drilling Rig

<:·<''"·•--.--- :'.Culebra

1' Subsurface I Boundary ofl Accessible I ., .. ,,. Environmenlj I ~

Shaft 1~0 tJ~1hf}

Lower Seal System-- .:··~· MB138 WffiE'

\ ~ : : : : : : :t : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 'iJi:

Waste Disp~sal Regio ~i.i,'"'"'·~·<'•"·••·Aifi'~{i;<\\'::,~~:~·;,., .. ··· .,. • ....... ·· ' ]l'.i[ /

MB139 Access Drifts

Pressurized Brine

(Notto Scale)

Note: Borehole penetrates waste and dot~s not penetrate pressurized brine in the underlying Castile Formation. Arrows indicate hypothetical direction of groundwater flow and radionuclide transport.

I: : : : I Anhydrite Layers a and b

k · r I Culebra

I .-3 Groundwater Flow and · Radionuclide Transport

C:J Disturbed Rock Zone

l<!:hi!II Repository and Shafts

fS3'® Increase in Culebra Hydraulic Conductivity Due to Mining

Figure 6-10. Conceptual Release Pathways for the Disturbed Performance Deep Drilling Scenario

CCA-011-0 DOE/CA0-96-2056

"C • .gi c c CCI:::::> ... en .!! c -·-fg ~ a: g?

0

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

E1

Drilling Rig

Re

I &' '-::'$' \ .1 ~, .... :~; . ,:;,·,:c .... ~----------:i ,,.__.,,., f ', ,4

I Subsurface I Boundary of I Accessible I Environment

1

I I I MB138

\ " . . "' . " ,. • • « .. •

Shaft

o~ I "C •••••••• , •••••••

~ • • Wa~t~ Di~p~s~I R~gi~~ \.-... ~., ,·,;,·~:: ';~~-:~;~~;y~~~feff/~~~}¥\W~-

i{ MB139 Access Drifts

Pressurized Brine

(Not to Scale)

Note: Borehole penetrates waste and pressurized brine in the underlying Castile Formation. Arrows indicate hypothetical diri~ction of groundwater flow and radionuclide transport.

Anhydrite Layers a and b

!···. >j Culebra

E~ Groundwater Flow and Radionuclide Transport

C.=:J Disturbed Rock Zone

t··><l Repository and Shafts

~ Increase in Culebra Hydraulic Conductivity Due to Mining

Figure 6-11. Conceptual Release Pathways for the Disturbed Performance Deep Drilling Scenario El

CCA-010-0 DOE/CA0-96-2056

____________ 4_0_C_F_R_1_9_1_C_o_m_.1lliance Certification Application

Ul -~ ·c: c ::> ca e> ... c .! ·;.. 1ii -= ... a: ~

0

0 '"C ca

Cii en

.! :;; ca

CJ

-...;;.·~"'-'"'··'··", -..·'

;1 Subsurface I Boundary of I Accessible I Environment I

t 4 I' " .. • • • "' " II "' •• " ii' •

• . . • • • • • 1 · • . . • • . • •

Waste Disposal Region-----1

E::Z El

"~'., '. .. :· ::~~~. ,.4._ ___ _ .. 'Culebra

Upper Seal System--

~ ·,~l?lt < .. . -:

Shaft r~~ MB138 Lower Seal System-J~:;~:·.

c,'.,'."'.~;,~1;;,~'. '. '. '~;,,;.,= ',~,il /

MB139 Access Drifts

Pressurized Brine

.. !,.iy.,;,:,[ :~,:-·:

(Not to Scale)

Note: Example shown includes only two boreholes, both of which penetrate waste and one of which penetrates pressurized brine in the underlying Castile Formation. Pathways are similar for examples containing multiple boreholes. Arrows indicate hypothetical direction of groundwater flow and radionuclide transport.

Anhydrite Layers a and b I ~ Gro~ndwa~er Flow and f+~fffMVJ Repository and Shafts · Radionuclide Transport

I ' <J Culebra C:::J Disturbed Rock Zone !)$~ Increase in Culebra Hydraulic Conductivity Due to Mining

Figure 6-12. Conceptual Release Pathways for the Disturbed Performance Deep Drilling Scenario E1E2

CCA-012-0 DOE/CA0-96-2056

c... E.

•.-: 00

..... \0 \0 C'\

,.,..,... --~··· '.)<'>"'·~

. ··'' ...

Penneability Changes in a 2 Plug Scenario

0 - 200 years 0 -· ---..-----

200 - 5000 years

Casing Corrodes; RustlerJ~!!!~ails; 1--- Hole Fills Witl~~-r.~~ ...,g

700'

850' ~~~-==F-_;___:.~::..:.:..

t 2150' • ~ •

Salado

2825'

t Castile 4000'

Bell Canyon

5

_J ~~-

t

Culebra

Rustler

Salado

Castile

Bell Canyon Plug Fails, Debris Fills Hole Above

Bridge Plug

More than 5000 years

!

I --

-z > !=' < M

~ M z ..., -z ..., :;::i c r.n -0 z t:l:l 0

~ ::t 0 t""' M

"' M

~ M > t:l:l ...... t: ...,

. -<

"O ~ n n w l.Jl

0 ...., w -J

(_, c

'""!

JC' ...... 'O 'O C'\

; I . , ....

Penneability Changes in a 3 Plug Scenario

0 - 200 years 0 -----.------

700'

800'-----==1=----=-___:::...:=:..:..:.:..

2150' '-----.,.--_. Salado

200 - 5000 years

Culebra Rustler

Salado

EvaporitePlug Restricts EvaporitePlug Restricts Reservoir - Repository Flow Reservoir- Repository Flow 2825'

More than 5000 years

i

tJ ----'ll

I;+: C 'I ash e ..,.. Lower Plugs Fail; Debris

Fills Hole above Bridge Plug Castile

4000'

Bell Canyon Bell Canyon

..... z > t::) ,,. M

" ..; M z ..; ...... z ..;

" c (/) ..... 0 z t;:;)

0

" M :I: 0 !:""' M "'C M

~ M > t;:;) ..... !:""'

'::; -<

"'C ~

'JQ n w ~

0 ..., w -...!

40 CFR l~l Compliance Certification Application

j~

•' 6

• Not Impacted by Mining

D Impacted by Mining

;:J;7/ /oc) ff?~S . /

>JI ' - ;:n //'/ ~ I"'/ jl-v-sc /v ~1

Figure 6-21. Extent of Impacted Are in the C Zone Outside the Disposal System

CCA-128-0 DOFJCA0-96-2056

2 Miles I I I 1

1 I 1 4Km

/"""~ h

Regional / Groundwater

/ Model

ralrOrnMining in the McNutt Potash or,Undis~~ormance

•

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

j~ 1

2 Miles r1-i

4Km

Figure 6-18. The Discretization Used in Modeling Groundwater Flow in the Culebra

CCA-127-0 DOFJCA0-96-2056

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

.. - . - - . - - .... - .....

:·;:·.~·gi~~6·~~f ~~~~:~·i~\~\:~.~:·{: ... . ·=·. : .. :· ..... : ..... . .·. Room or Drift · ... ·. · ... ._ · ... ·. · ·-:-: .. _ .. ·:-: ..... ·:~ .. _:.:-: .. _ ... :.: .. _ ... :.: .. _ ... :.: .. _ ...

Drilling Mud

Drill Bit .,,...~

' Borehole Casing

·:::~~ ::~:~ ~~~:~ -~~~~·~~~;: l-~~~ ~ ::~ ::.=::::.=:::::Room or Drift ::::: .:.:.: :.:.:~ ::··=·: :,.·< :_:.::. ::·-::. ::·-:-: :_:.;

- ; ~,;._,~...,-!.,..~~---~ ·~;., ......... ;,::..:,~·x-·· ' - ,.,;. :_..

Drill Pipe

Figure 6-23. Schematic Representation of a Rotary Drilling Operation Penetrating the Repository

CCA-019-0 DOFJCA0-96-2056

Performance Assessment Parameter Database

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

EQ3/6 FMT

BRAG FLO

.___ ...... __ ,J,~~'~J .s.Ec~TP2~. t~l L~g Te~~~J~::~ ----L>·'S;'.!g:1~~?~i~~~~~~~!'fl~;~i(:~'~.:s:;j~: (Undi~~~~~~~:~.a~i~sE1 E2)

I

G~:ip~ 1------~-"~--" F~~~h- ~~!: ~;-----,: Constant and Variable I ... · •· ~ J > - 1

·::oc··:"ro·o::~:·.c'.'., I

Parameters ~·p~~lli~ic · :

Lef~r.!!:- -· -- -"""·-~ --' c:::J Active Code

c:::J Inactive Code {Undisturbed Performance)

CCOF

Figure 6-26. Major Codes, Code Linkages, and Flow of Numerical Information in WIPP Performance Assessment

CCA-003-0 DOE/CA0-96-2056

BRAG FLO

40 t:l<'R 191 t:ompliance t:ertification Application

Scenario Consequence Estimation

CUTTINGS (Release of Cuttings to Accessible Environment)

(2-Phase Flow/Closure)

' .. ~ .......... ~ BRAG FLO SANTOS

Lower Shaft- Ll Seal System . . . . . . . . . • •

--~ Anhydrite Layers A and ~pprox~~oo~\- - }~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anhydrite Fracturing

CCA-013-0 DOE/CAU-96-2056

PANEUNUTS (Radionuclide BRAGFLO -­Concentration) (Brine and Gas Flow)

Subsurface Boundary

of Accessible Environment

Access Drift

__ Brine Reservoir

(Not to Scale)

Figure 6-27. Schematic Side View of the Disposal System Associating Major Performance Assessment Codes with the Components of the Disposal System Each Code Simulates

2 :II CD C :!. Ill '< ~ -·CD ::s .... cc D> c ::s ::s a. it

(/) D> iii a. 0

0 D>

~ iD"

Performance Assessment Parameter Database

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification AJll?lication

EQ3/6

Constant and Variable Parameters

>·:·t··.··:., __

FMT

BRAGFLO

CCDF_GF

I .I

I I I

·'I I I

c::::J Active Code

:Probabilistjc ,_ ;:.f~r:!!.- - -------·-'

c::::J Inactive Code (Undisturbed Performance)

CCDF

Figure 6-33. Code Configuration for the Undisturbed Performance Scenario

CCA-001-0 OOE/CA0-96-2056

Performance Assessment Parameter Database

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

EQ3/6 FMT

---1

BRAG FLO

I

I I I I I

·.·'.·.· .. ~.·.·.· .. ~·.· .. '.·.;·;.·.·.'.·.· ... ·· .. ···~.1 ~EC~TP2D 1 .. ·.'.;·L·;··.:1 Lon.gr.;;- - -r-01,;.;----' }_..,,",.,.,,,,, ·•d Summary Results

-G~J~~!~~~~~ 8;;~f ==r~·~~~l:: ~~j Constant and Variable •~ ···:"'."' .. · . 1

' Parameters 1~£i:~fustiC i : I · I l~':!:_F~r.!!!_._ _ _ __ ~ - - ..:. - I

c:J Active Code

c:J Inactive Code {Undisturbed Performanc:e)

CCDF

Figure 6-35. Code Configuration for Disturbed Performance Scenario E1E2

CCA-125-0 DOE/CA0-96-2056

Performance Assessment Parameter Database

40 CFR 191 Compliance Certification Application

EQ3/6 FMT

BRAGFLO

--------r--------'·'·' Long Term Direct ] I H I ... . .. <t: ; S;yc {~i SECOTP2D 'ii j

* . At1r11:'.S1Jf!HC t.t1 Summary Results for All Scenarios

(Undisturbed, E1, E2, E1 E2)

I

___ j ___ -_ J_ ---- ---~ , Con-::~;::~riablo • [;~;~~;~ CCDF _GF !

1Pr0bSbilistic ; ,, 1

GRASP­INV

c::J Active Code I ~Futures - I -------- -----~-~1

c::J Inactive Code {Undisturbed Performance)

CCDF

Figure 6-34. Code Configuration for Disturbed Performance Scenarios E 1 and E2

CCA-002-0 DOE/CA0-96-2056

Total Releases 100 Observations, 10000 Futures/Observation, R1, R2, R3

101

r- ' . I I

s:: 10° 0 ·-

I

v.> ::s

... -------I

J...

.... , " I 1--- EPALimil

'-+-'

\ \

s:: ,-....

.. ' I

Mean

~ ..c: ~

' \

10·1

' I

==-- 90th Quantile

s:: c,) C':

' \ ' I .

·---~-- 50th Quantile

ci::::: ~ -

' i

s <l) ~

I I I

- 1 Oth Quantile

a:

I ' ::s 0 ;;;i..

I L-

0:: -~ 0

I \ --,

A

I

rJl

I

s:: ~ 10·2

I

rJl

I

~ ~ ci:::::

I

·-

I

~ ~ <l) ·-

I

r' ~ s .0

I

co

I

u \ #

I

u ('I") .0

I

'-"' 0

\ \ l

s:: L.

"" a.. 10·3

I ...

Cl)

I

•

~

I I I I I I I I I \

10·4

'

k-

• \ Ill .. II I II I

I I

-5 10 -6

10

...

10"5 10·4 10·3 10·2 10·1 10° 101 10

2

Total Release, R

07/11/96 18:05:55

•.

-c 0

:;:::; ctS 2: Q) en .c 0 -....

en en Q) ~ en ::J ctS ...... Q) ~ Q) 0 a: 0 co ctS 0 Q) -r--

~ en c 0 ...... ctS 2: Q) en .c 0 0 0 -r--

.,... 0 ,..-

.,... 0 ,..-

0 0 ,..-

.... ,,. _____________ : ..... -----­ .,... .

0

0 0 ,..-

.·

_./ /

I /

i i i i i i i

.,...

i i i i i i i

'o ,..-

,,. .... ,,.

,/

/ /,/

.... ------·

IH 'sasEa1aa au!JH lJ~J!U 's~U!f (EdS 's~un1n3 sasBa1aa uEaw

,..-

C\J . 0 ,..-

Co? 0 ,..-

"'!' 0 ,..-

u;>

IO

'o ,..-

0 ,..-

a: Q) (j)

co Q)

Q)

a: co ..... 0 I-

<O ~ .,... ...... j:::: 0

•.

-c 0 ~ co 2: Q) en ..c Q

(/) (/)

Q) ~ CJ) :J

co -Q) ~ Q) 0 0: 0 co co 0 Q) ~

~ CJ)

c 0

+:i co 2: Q) CJ)

..c 0 0 0 ~

C\J ..,.,....,..,...,........,.._...~ ....... ..,...,......-..-.-~"l"l'T"l""""""".._,.__,...--""""" .............. ---.---........................... --.---.......... .._.."'T"""'I_,,.~ 0

.,.... 0 T""

T""

-------:;=-.::, ____ _ -·-------:.-----::..-.:: ...,.... ---------:::-----:.:-.:------_,,,,,- ----- --------,,,,,,,,.- -- ----

_,,,,,..,. ---:.------.,,,..,,,,,,,,,,. ---..::---­

/ -­/ .,.,,.:;:-.. "' / ,,,'j,'

I "" , / I

I' / ( ' ·"' // /

/./ /

,. ... / ,/,,.

,,,. .... ---------

I I

/

0 0 T""

.· / /

i I i i i i i ; ; ; ; .

.,.... 'o T""

~ (')

o 'o T"" T""

.... -· --------­...... ---

ZH 'sasua1aH au!JH: }J~.:f!CT 's~un1uds 's~un1n::> sasua1aH uuaw

T""

~ 0 T""

er 0 T""

"'1" . 0 T""

~

in

'o T""

0 T""

a: -Q) Cf)

Ct1 Q)

Q)

a: Ct1

..+--J

0 r-

co ~ .... .... ;:::: 0

-c 0

:;:::; ro c: Q) CJ) ..c 0 ..........

CJ) CJ)

Q) ~ CJ) ::l ro _. Q) ::l - LL Q)

a: 0 0

co ro o Q) r-

~ CJ)

c 0 -ro c: Q) CJ) ..c 0 0 0 r-

Cl) !3, -Cl c ::::I c ·- 0 ca::=::

0 :5 ~.Q ..... () Cl) co

I i i i

---_.;.-=-=--==-~~--------------~-==;-.:;:;.~ ---------- ____ ..... _...,... _.... ---------- ,,..,. ----..,,,,,,.. ,-:,...--..,..- ...r-

/ -7 / ,,,.-:--/ .... -.... ,

I / ,' / I

" l' / ( : .. /

I I

0 0 .,-

.·

I I

i I

I i

/ i

i i i i ; i i i i ; i

..... 'o .,-

,..,,.-··-' /

.I'·

...... ---· -----,,.--------------­. .---

£H 'sasBa1aa aU!.IR lJ~.I!O: 'S~U!I{BdS 'S~UHlDJ sasEa1aa uBaw

0 0 .,-

.... I

0 .,-

~ 0 .,-

"? 0 .,-

v I

0 .,-

IO I·

0 .,-

a: -Q) Cf)

co Q)

Q)

a: co -0 I-

IO IO .:0 0 a:; ....

·.

c: 0 ~ ct! 2: Q) (/J ..c 0

(/J -.. Q) (/J

(/J ~ ct! :J Q) :5 a> LL a: 0 (/J 0 e>o c: 0 ~ T"9

:J -()~

0 -ct! 2: Q) (/J ..c 0 0 0 T"9

<rT"P",_,.....-r-..---n-r....,.......-.---.---,'PT"l"T-r-r-..,......,.--~.....,...~·~-----,.....,....-.--..--..~..,.,.,..,...,........,-.-....--,,,.NQ

..... 0 ~

r-------·---

---------.J

0 0 ~

..... 'o ~

N 'o ~

(')

'o ~

'<t

'o ~

u:1

~

..... 0 ~

0 0 ~

.,.... . 0 ~

~ 0 ~

"? 0 ~

"i 0 ~

u:1 0 ~

~ 0 ~

0 ~

a: -Q)

en ctS Q)

Q)

a: ctS -0 I-

LO LO iO 0 a:;

cc ~ ..... ..... r::: 0

(/) (]) '"O (/') Cl) cu ~ (])

© .s a: U) ...... . '"O

co c: .... ~ 0

I-

·.

I.! :::J

~ w I I l .

. .... ···""

r-~------------

. l l · .. ,

_____ ..:........,--..J

- 0 0 0 - C\J (') • I . ....... ....... o. 0 0

'":"- ..... ....... ....... ..

t:t < J\lmqeqoJd

....

....... 0: (1) CJ)

ro <D

....... <D 0: ro .........

....... 0 r-

(() I

0 .......

'<t' '1 I

0 0 ....... ....... I.()

~ I.() v

\ lri -(!)

~ co ~ t--0

~ ..

-..-,,,,v,·t~-'"''i"''.Y

Hu

ma

n I

ntr

usi

on

H

um

an

In

tru

sio

n

Hu

ma

n I

ntr

usi

on

! +

I Hum

an

In

tru

sio

n I +

I

Dir

ect

+:

T

ran

spo

'rt

I -

Su

mm

ary

-

Cu

ttin

g

Sp

all

Bri

ne

th

rou

gh

Cu

leb

ra

Re

lea

se

& M

ark

er

Be

d

Dri

llin

g R

ate

Dri

llin

g R

ate

" D

rilli

ng

Rat

e N

o R

elea

se

Siz

e o

f Bit

Pre

ssur

e P

ress

ure

Was

te S

heer

P

artic

le D

iam

eter

W

aste

Sat

urat

ion

Str

engt

h T

ensi

le S

tren

gth

So

lub

ilitie

s

1.0

0.8

. ~

:.a

C1lJ

0.6

.0

0 .... a..

Q)

.~

(ti

"5 E

0.4

::>

(.)

0.2

0.0

0 ..

2.

PLO

TLH

S

vera

ion

X·2

.00

ZO

BO

RE

HO

LE

TA

UF

AIL

UN

IFO

RM

D

istri

butio

n

Cum

ulat

ive

Pro

babi

lity

+ S

ampl

ed

Dat

a

Var

iabl

e 33

In

LH

S

4.

6.

8.

Fai

lure

S

hear

Stre

ss

(Pa)

22·J

UL

·96

11:2

9:09

10.

Par

amet

ers

HI

-C

utti

ngs

-D

rill

ing

Rat

e 4 7

-

Size

of B

it

12.2

5 in

. -

Was

te S

heer

Str

engt

h

1.0

0.8

>. ~

:.0

CU

'J 0.

6 .0

e a..

Q) > ~

:;

E

0.4

:J

(.)

0.2

0.0

SP

AL

L. P

AR

TD

IA

LOG

UN

IFO

RM

D

istri

butio

n

Cum

ulat

ive

Pro

babi

lity

+ S

ampl

ed

Dat

a

Var

iabl

e 32

In

LH

S

1 o·S

1 o·4

1

0·3

1

0·2

10

-1

100

PA

RT

DIA

PL

Oll

HS

ve

nion

X

·2.0

0 ZO

22

·JU

L·9

6 11

:29;

09

Par

amet

ers

HI

-S

pal

l

·-D

rill

ing

Rat

e 47

-I'

- 0 .,_

iC - ro

'J a..

I

(J) w

a:

(L

(J)I

<( ~ . .

Ct)

C\

J 0 I

Inte

ract

ive

SN

L W

IPP

PA

96:

BF

ST

AT

IST

ICA

L S

UM

MA

RY

(C

CA

Sce

nari

o 1)

Vol

ume-

Ave

rage

d P

ress

ure

in W

aste

Pan

el

1.5

,.....--,--,----.-,---,.---.--~-.--.--..----r----.--.---r--_,.----r-.--,--,.----.

1.2

0.9

0.6

0.3

/a--::::::::-=---=-~

/ ...

-'.'..

-_..-

-;::;?

_

__

.,,-

=-=

---

, -~-

-~--

t

Jf!

'v

---

=-=-=-

-=-~-

• --a--

--=

==

--i

~ --

--

# ----

II /// l/ I/ v I I I R

.... -.

.... :;:::

=~=.,. "'~

:::::~.:

"'':::0:

· p.

'..,.

,,.

--·-

· ,,..

,/

.~./

/.~

./

_.-·

-·-·

----

-..........

II II ii

//

/~·

-.(i

' -.(

I 1i f

___ .-••'

"'-~".!'-'-'

-'-'-'---·_:

.:.:.CO 0°.0

fo". o

_: 0::

::::

::::

'A

,, --

----

:li''·

:---

---'J

...... ...

...... ....

........

... .

..... : .

..... •"'

,,

' ,,

"' ,'

..a"'

..........

..... ...

I. ,.

,. ...

... ...

. ,.'

~--

' ,,.

-"

I "

, "

, H

. ,,,

,.'

; r/

... --

~•"

I• ,

,,,;

,'

, "

" j

, K

,;'

• I

,,9

I I

~

. ""

'/.~

I

,""

, i

,,. .,,

. ,/'

l,

,, 0.

0 •

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Tim

e -

Yea

rs (

*1 o3

)

b. R

1

o R

2

a R

3 --

Mea

n

-·-

--

Med

ian

----

-10

th P

erce

ntile

---

90th

Per

cent

ile

SP

LA

T X

2.0

06/1

0/96

12

:59:

17

-..

..- I 0 ~

iC - CJ) CJ

) (]

)

'J c 0 CJ

) c (]) E

1J I ro

I- <(

CJ)

I a:

~I

.. <O

~

0 I

Inte

ract

ive

SN

L W

IPP

PA

96:

BF

ST

AT

IST

ICA

L S

UM

MA

RY

(C

CA

Sce

nari

o 1)

Vol

ume-

Ave

rage

d B

rine

Sat

urat

ion

in W

aste

Pan

el p

lus

Res

t of

Rep

osito

ry

6.0

.--.--.---.-....--..--.--..---.--.-----..-........--...---....-...-~---ro-.----.--.-----.

5.0

4.0

3.0

1"',,

I \

~-a.

...

\ ?J

/ \

._ , ,.

\ \

fl \

" 'El

" II

a-"

\

"-......._

II r

--..

.\ "

-.......

....._"

II

\ '-

"

'°",

II

',

'-,

'-,,._

If

... __

_ ,

__

,,_ _

_ ''-

-'--

--

'-, ---i

_--1

-,

-------

----

--..... _

____

_ ..,

-------

~-----

-.....

..........

. .........

........

........

.. ·.

-...

. __

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

-+

2.0

1.0

·t-..:..-

:-..+-.

... 11

•

13·-:-

-......

,. .....

. ·,

.. -A....-

.........

'·'!-

-II

'

"'-.

'·-.

..

. ·....

.. .,

· .........

.. I

'&.

·,.

.,_

.

i ·,·<:::

.~~:::::::·:::

:::·:::::.: :J

=·=·:: ::::::~;

::;;;: =:=~=:=::

:;:; ;;;

I'

~"'='t, ','

, ....

':It' '\,

, r

"' ... ~"".::

---o.o

I

I , -1

--f~

!-_

0 0

-F--

=a

t---

1

1 •

·0-

I I

I I

• I

J I

I •

I I

I •

I

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Tim

e -

Yea

rs (

*1 o3

)

A

R1

<> R

2 a

R3

--

Me

an

-----

Med

ian

-----

10th

Per

cent

ile

---

90th

Per

cent

ile

SP

LA

T X

2.0

0

6/1

0/9

6

13:0

0:34

Con

clus

ions

• W

IPP

Com

plie

s

• 3

Mai

n C

ontr

ibut

ors

to R

elea

se

-C

utti

ngs

-S

pall

-

Dir

ect B

rine

Rel

ease

s

• S

ensi

tivi

ty A

naly

ses

Iden

tifi

ed th

e Im

po

rtan

t Par

amet

ers