WIPP Science to Compliance

1. WIPP Science to Compliance George Basabilvazo

2. Science to Compliance Considerations • Site selection and characterization • Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) screening • Performance Assessment • Opening Day • Compliance & Regulatory framework • Operations and Lessons Learned

3. WIPP has progressed through 5 phases • 1957 - Commitment to geologic disposal in salt (National Academy of Sciences in 1957; reiterated in 1968 and 1970) • 1973 - Site selection: literature-based regional characterization that culminated in selection of Delaware Basin in New Mexico • 1979 - Feasibility evaluation: surface-based characterization that culminated in Draft EIS in 1979 and authorization by Congress for TRU waste disposal • 1989 - Site viability: disposal system characterization through subsurface-based characterization and waste process knowledge/sampling that culminated in a Supplemental Draft EIS in 1989 • 1996 – Compliance evaluation (Environmental Protection Agency and New Mexico State Environment Department): disposal system evaluation that culminated in certification and Hazardous Waste Facility Permit 1999 - Permanent Transuranic mixed waste disposal operations; re-certification phase

4. Site Selection The site

5. WIPP Site

6. Beginning Science • Characterization for site selection started in 1974 with drilling of two wells • Characterization for feasibility included • Conceptual design in 1977 • Waste tests • Surface based evaluation from wells • Characterization for viability included • Underground testing • New wells and tracer tests • Characterization for PA, specified by relevance • Focused experiments (e.g., SNL, LANL, BNL, ANL, Universities) • Saved time and resources

7. WIPP Site Characterization Geophysical surveys Surface-based geologic drilling, coring, & geophysical logging Geologic mapping Geochemical sampling and analysis Geomechanical testing Hydrologic testing

8. Subsurface Characterization

9. Features Events and Processes • FEP universe based on input from international waste programs (preliminary input to “NEA database”) • Added WIPP specific FEPs and then screened duplicates • ~240 FEPs • For example, fluid intrusion from secondary and tertiary recovery at oil wells • For example, mining of potash above the repository that causes collapse in Culebra aquifer and thereby, high transmissivity zones over repository • Screened out catastrophic faulting in 104 yr

10. Performance Assessment

11. Opening Day

12. AREVA WIPP Transportation Routes

13. WIPP Underground

14. Organizational Structure • U.S. Department of Energy • EM-1 • Executive Leadership • U.S. Department of Energy • Carlsbad Field Office • Leads the Transuranic Waste Program • Science Program Corporate Board Generator Sites • Washington TRU Solutions • Manages and operates WIPP • Manage transportation • Mobile characterization • Sandia National Laboratories • Scientific advisor for repository recertification • Los Alamos National Laboratory • Scientific advisor for waste characterization • Mobile loading • Carlsbad Technical Assistance Contractor • Technical and Quality Assurance support for the Carlsbad Field Office • CAST and Visionary Solutions • Transportation

15. WIPP Regulatory Framework U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Environmental Policy Act (environmental impact statements), nuclear safety U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 10,000 year Repository certification, radionuclide regulation, PCBs New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) RCRA hazardous constituents, water discharge, groundwater, air U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Transportation Type B packages for nuclear materials U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Highway transportation, Type 7A containers

16. Step-Wise Approach • Interplay between Science, Policy, Legislative, and Regulatory Decisions, Legal Challenges, and Stakeholder/ Public Influence • Common Themes Through Each Phase of Certification/Licensing • Technically sound science programs • Stakeholder, public, local community interaction • Lawsuits • Regulatory Interactions • Peer Reviews (domestic and international) • Plan for data collection, evaluation, analysis, model development, iterative performance assessments, compliance/license application(s), legal challenges, operations, sustaining safe & compliant operations

17. Lessons Learned • Defensible scientific, site characterization and experimental programs (technically, quality assurance, relevance) • Early involvement of stakeholders and independent oversight group(s) • Establish processes to address regulator, stakeholder/public participation • Recognize opponents probably will not be convinced; expect legal challenges • Ensure appropriately resourced dialogue and face-to-face meetings with regulators • Independent regulatory standards and criteria • Recognize regulators will represent applicants to public • Balance desire to increase public confidence, achieve transparent processes, with resources to meet regulatory requirements • Committed and focused project management • Recognize the time to go from R&D to compliance (certification/licensing) • Success directly related to strong local and political support

18. A Few of the Challenges US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (transportation) US Environmental Protection Agency (Regulates radio nuclides) New Mexico State Environment Department (Regulates Hazardous [chemical] Materials) US Mine Safety and Health Administration US Department of Transportation Independent Technical Oversight Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board Affected States on Transportation Routes Public Advocacy Groups SRIC, CCNS, CARD DOE HQ, State, Local City and County Officials Generator / Storage Sites with TRU waste

19. It’s all good • The next few days will cover topics in more detail • WIPP Regulatory Compliance – R. Kirkes • WIPP Site Selection – R. Nelson • Hydrology Programs – R. Beauheim • WIPP Natural & Engineered Barriers – F. Hansen • WIPP Performance Assessment – D. Clayton • Monitoring & Permanent Markers – S. Wagner