In the new values used for the updated corrosion rates, the minimum rates do not account for the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the repository while the maximum rates do not account for increases in repository pressure concomitant with CO2 increase. The latter in particular, can result in increased corrosion rates that can subsequently lead to higher repository pressure conducive to releases. In addition, EPA believes that H2S induced steel passivation will occur, causing a significant decrease in corrosion once it occurs.

      The model also ignores lead in the waste containers and do not account for their maximum potential of future containers which may be significant. The corrosion and gas generation model also ignores the putative effects of radiolysis on gas generation as this rate was negligible in comparison to other potential sources of gas generation. However, because lower microbial gas generation rates were used in the 2014 PA, radiolysis may now provide a bigger contribution to gas generation.

      To address EPA's concerns about corrosion, part of DOE's sensitivity study involved simulating passivation by turning off the corrosion reaction. These changes resulted in a slight increase in gas pressures as well a decrease in the saturation of the waste area because both H2 gas and H2O were eliminated from the end products. Results from this study included an adequate margin of safety allowing for EPA to accept the updates to corrosion. However, the EPA expects the DOE to account for steel passivation and corrosion issues addressed above in the CRA-2019. EPA also expects DOE to develop upper bound estimates for lead corrosion and methods to account for radiolysis.

      For the 2014-PA, DOE has also chosen to calculate repository water balance, which is the culmination of multiple chemical reactions like corrosion. Although changes to each of the chemical reactions are minor, these reactions will all have a cumulative effect and increase repository saturation or change repository pressure and subsequent releases. Based on previous exchanges with DOE as well as the SEN4 sensitivity study, EPA can accept the current water balance as it does not appear to significantly affect the PA. However, by continuing to refine this calculation, DOE can provide a realistic and defensible calculation for the WIPP PA.

	EPA did not receive any additional public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(b)(1).

24.2.10 2014 Recertification Decision (194.24(b)(1))

	After discussions with DOE, the sensitivity study, and based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(b)(1).

24.3 Requirement (194.24(b)(2))

	(b) "The Department shall submit in the compliance certification application the results of an analysis which substantiates:
(2) That all waste components influencing the waste characteristics identified in 		paragraph (b)(1) of this section have been identified and assessed for their impact on disposal system performance.  The components to be analyzed shall include, but shall not be limited to: metals; cellulosics; chelating agents; water and other liquids; and activity in curies of each isotope of the radionuclides present."

24.3.1 1998 Certification Decision (194.24(b)(2))

	To demonstrate compliance with Section 194.24(b)(2), EPA expected DOE to present rationales, logical arguments, applications of screening procedures, results of bounding or sensitivity analyses, etc., beginning from the description required by 194.24(a) and leading to the selection of the important or significant waste components to be limited and controlled to assure compliance with the disposal regulations.  DOE identified a number of waste components and characteristics that would be important to performance and EPA reviewed them.  EPA identified several issues with DOE's treatment of the waste components and characteristics in the CCA PA, but through independent analysis and changes to the PA in the PAVT, these issues were resolved and EPA determined that DOE complied with this section (CCA CARD 24).

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Section 194.24(b)(2) can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

24.3.2 Changes in the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(b)(2))

	DOE indicated that the components identified below were expected to have a significant effect on disposal system performance and so were used in the CCA PA, 2004 CRA PA and the 2004 PABC:

 Ferrous metals

 Cellulose and other chelating agents (i.e., organic ligands) as they pertain to enhanced actinide mobility

 Radioactivity in curies of each isotope

 -emitting TRU radionuclides, t1/2 > 20 years (t1/2 is the half-life)

 Radionuclides

 Solid waste components (e.g., soils and cementitious materials)

 Sulfates

 Nitrates

	Most of the inventory amounts of the listed components have changed and are discussed in the PABC Inventory Report and EPA's Technical Support Document for Section 194.24:  Review of the Baseline Inventory Used in the Compliance Recertification Application and the Performance Assessment Baseline Calculation (A-98-49, Item II-B1-9).  The important items have not changed from the CCA, and EPA agreed that DOE's information was adequate and reported this in CCA CARD 24.

	The only change of significance is the incorporation of organic ligands in the actinide solubility PA calculations.  DOE updated the FMT thermodynamic databases with information related to organics to account for the organic ligands' effect on actinide solubility (2004 CRA Appendix SOTERM 5.0).

	DOE had reported in CCA Appendix SOTERM that organic ligands are not expected to affect the aqueous speciation of actinides, given anticipated repository conditions, because of competition for the ligands with major solutes in the brine and metal ions derived from corrosion of waste materials.  In addition, DOE's thermodynamic database did not have the parameters to analyze the effect of organic ligands under the high ionic strength solutions expected at WIPP. EPA conducted an independent evaluation of the effects of organic ligands by conducting modeling runs at lower ionic strengths to examine the effects of the organic ligand EDTA on the aqueous speciation of Th(IV) and the solubility of ThO2(am).  EDTA was considered because it has the greatest affinity for forming aqueous complexes with the actinides compared to acetate, citrate, and oxalate.

	The modeling runs indicated that the EDTA concentration would have to increase by at least 1,000 times the maximum concentrations expected for the repository to produce an appreciable change in the aqueous speciation of Th(IV) and solubility of ThO2(am), and this range was limited primarily to acidic pH conditions.  At the pH conditions of 9 to 10 that are relevant to the repository with MgO backfill, the EDTA was complexed predominantly by Ca and Mg ions.  These results implied that the organic ligands are unlikely to affect the mobilities of the actinides.

	Reported inventories of the four ligands changed between the CCA and 2004 CRA, including increased concentrations of acetate, changes in oxalate and citrate inventories that appear to have been caused by transposing the data during the CCA, and a decrease in the estimated inventory of EDTA (2004 CRA Appendix PA Attachment SOTERM Table SOTERM-4).  In addition, new estimates of the available brine necessary for a release have decreased, thus effectively increasing concentrations (from ~30,000 m[3] to ~10,000 m[3]).
	DOE stated that acetate, citrate, EDTA, and oxalate will not significantly affect the +III and +IV actinide solubilities (CRA Appendix PA Attachment SOTERM Section 5.0).  Comparison of FMT calculations with and without organic ligands indicates that this is true for the +IV actinides.  However, comparisons of FMT output files for calculations with and without organic ligands indicate that higher +III actinide solubilities are observed in runs with organic ligands than in runs without organic ligands.  These higher concentrations occurred because AmEDTA[-] constituted approximately one-quarter to one-half of the aqueous americium(III) species in FMT runs with organic ligands.  These comparisons also indicated that oxalate complexation significantly increased neptunium(V) solubilities, however, since the neptunium will be present in such low concentrations, there is little effect on releases.
24.3.3 Evaluation of Compliance for 2004 Recertification (194.24(b)(2))

	The concentrations of organic ligands were re-evaluated for the PABC actinide solubility calculations based on a revised estimate of the minimum amount of brine that could lead to a release from the repository.  In addition, new data regarding the possible complexation of +IV actinides by EDTA were identified; these data were evaluated to determine its potential significance to the actinide solubility calculations for WIPP repository conditions.

	In the PA vectors, the volume of brine used to dissolve the ligands may not be the minimum value that could be released from a single panel.  It is also possible that the majority of ligands will be placed in a single panel because most ligands are in a limited number of waste streams.  The assumption that all ligands are in the same panel and that these ligands would be mobilized by the minimum brine volume released from a single panel would be the most-conservative scenario for calculating ligands concentrations.  However, the probability of a randomly located borehole encountering such a panel, if it existed in the repository, would be correspondingly reduced.  The individual PA vectors would be influenced if modeling could be done on a panel-by-panel basis, but the influence on the mean concentrations would probably be small.  Therefore, the use of the minimum amount of brine that could be released from the entire repository and assuming that all ligands are dissolved in this amount of brine is likely to be a reasonable approximation for calculating ligands concentrations and the resulting actinide solubilities.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(b)(2).

24.3.4 2004 Recertification Decision (194.24(b)(2))

	During EPA's review of the important waste components, EPA identified that only organic ligands were addressed differently than in the CCA.  Organic ligands could increase actinide solubility, but EPA has determined that DOE has adequately included their effects in the PABC.

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determined that DOE continued to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(b)(2).

24.3.5 Changes in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(b)(2))

	DOE continues to indicate that the components identified Section 24.3.2 of this CARD are expected to have a significant impact on disposal system performance and continue to be used in the 2009 CRA PABC calculations.  These components are: ferrous metals, cellulose and other chelating agents (i.e., organic ligands) as they pertain to enhanced actinide mobility, radioactivity in curies of each isotope, -emitting TRU radionuclides, t1/2 > 20 years (t1/2 is the half-life), radionuclides, solid waste components (e.g., soils and cementitious materials), sulfates, nitrates, and organic ligands used in the actinide solubility PA calculations.  The most significant change in the 2009 PABC is the increase in some waste materials' chemical components, noted in Table 24-2 of this CARD.

24.3.6 Evaluation of Compliance for 2009 Recertification (194.24(b)(2))

	DOE calculated new solubility values for the 2009 PABC based on the most recent inventory (ATWIR-2008, PAIR-2008).  EPA reviewed DOE's development of solubilities and solubility uncertainty for the 2009 PABC and evaluated the impact of the increased inventory items on WIPP performance predictions.  EPA found that DOE continues to identify waste characteristics that are important to repository performance and assess their impact as required by 194.24(b)(2).

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(b)(2).

24.3.7 2009 Recertification Decision (194.24(b)(2))

	EPA's reviewed of the important waste components determined that DOE has adequately included their effects in the 2009 PABC calculations.

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2009 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(b)(2).

24.3.8 Changes in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(b)(2))

	DOE continues to indicate that the components identified Section 24.3.2 of this CARD are expected to have a significant impact on disposal system performance and continue to be used in the 2014 CRA calculations.  These components for the 2014 CRA continue to be: ferrous metals, cellulose and other chelating agents (i.e., organic ligands) as they pertain to enhanced actinide mobility, radioactivity in curies of each isotope, -emitting TRU radionuclides, t1/2 > 20 years (t1/2 is the half-life), radionuclides, solid waste components (e.g., soils and cementitious materials), sulfates, nitrates, and organic ligands used in the actinide solubility PA calculations.  The most significant change in the 2014 PA is the increase in some waste materials' chemical components, noted in Table 24-2 of this CARD.

24.3.9 Evaluation of Compliance for 2014 Recertification (194.24(b)(2))

	DOE calculated new solubility values for the 2014 PA based on the most recent inventory (ATWIR-2012, PAIR-2012).  EPA reviewed DOE's development of solubilities and solubility uncertainty for the 2014 PA and evaluated the impact of the increased inventory items on WIPP performance predictions.  EPA found that DOE continues to identify waste characteristics that are important to repository performance and assess their impact as required by 194.24(b)(2).

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(b)(2).

24.3.10 2014 Recertification Decision (194.24(b)(2))

	EPA's reviewed of the important waste components determined that DOE has adequately included their effects in the 2014 PA calculations.

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014 -0609), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(b)(2).

24.4 Requirement (194.24(b)(3))

	(b) "The Department shall submit in the compliance certification application the results of an analysis which substantiates:

		(3) Any decision to exclude consideration of any waste characteristic or waste 				component because such characteristic or component is not expected to significantly 			influence the containment of the waste in the disposal system."

24.4.1 1998 Certification Decision (194.24(b)(3))

	To demonstrate compliance with 194.24(b)(3), EPA expected DOE to present rationales, logical arguments, applications of screening procedures, results of bounding or sensitivity analyses, etc., beginning from the description required by 194.24(a) and leading to the selection of the important or significant waste components to be limited and controlled to assure compliance with the disposal regulations.

	DOE provided a list of those waste characteristics and components that were excluded from consideration in the PA for various reasons, such as negligible impact.  EPA examined DOE's exclusion of the specified waste characteristics and components to determine whether DOE excluded them appropriately.

	EPA evaluated DOE's assumptions, calculations and experimental results and posed questions pertaining to assumptions and conclusions made by DOE.  EPA's concerns centered around DOE's exclusion of the effects of organic ligands (in particular EDTA) on repository performance, because EPA found DOE's justification to be weak.  EPA's investigation found that the mechanisms that DOE postulated concerning organic ligands' behavior came from well-established fundamental principals existing in relevant literature.  EPA performed a bounding analysis assuming EDTA volumes up to approximately 1000 times that used by DOE.  This analysis showed that the solubility of the modeled actinide was unaffected by EDTA quantity at repository pH and pCO2 .  EPA therefore concluded that DOE's treatment of organic ligands was adequate (CCA CARD 24).

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Section 194.24(b)(3) can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

24.4.2 Changes in the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(b)(3))

	DOE provided a list of those waste characteristics and components that were excluded from consideration in the PA for various reasons, such as negligible impact (CCA Appendix WCA, Table WCA-4 and CRA Appendix TRU WASTE-6).  The effect of organic ligands, however, is incorporated into the PABC.  These characteristics and components included the following changes from the CCA noted in bold):

                                                   Characteristic				Component			Reason Excluded
                                             cellulosics radiolysis			radionuclides			negligible effect on total CO2
explosivity					other organic compounds	no effect
                                                   brine radiolysis				radionuclides			negligible effect on actinide valence
galvanic action				nonferrous metals		negligible effect on PA
complexation with actinides	soil/humic material		actinide mobility
                                                   buffering action				cement				negligible; reacts w/CO2 and MgCl2
heat of solution				cement				negligible effect on PA
                                                   Ca[2+] binding-organic ligands	cement				negligible compared to other metals
buffering action				ferrous metals			would reduce actinide mobility
galvanic action				ferrous metals			negligible effect on PA
binding to organic ligands		ferrous alloy components	can reduce actinide mobility
redox reactions				nonferrous metals		negligible compared to iron
binding to organic ligands		nonferrous metals		can reduce actinide mobility
complexation with actinides	organic ligands		negligible effect (in 2004 PABC)
gas generation				Al, other non-ferrous metals	negligible effect relative to steels
microbial nutrients,
                                                   CO2 generation 				phosphates			negligible due to MgO-CO2 reaction
microbial nutrients
CH4 generation				phosphates			negligible
heat generation				RH-TRU			negligible
electrochemical	processes		sulfate, nitrate, phosphate	negligible

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Section 194.24(b)(2) can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

24.4.3 Evaluation of Compliance for 2004 Recertification (194.24(b)(3))

	There were no changes in the important waste components and characteristics, with the exception that DOE did analyze the effect of organic ligands in the CRA performance assessment calculations as discussed for section 194.24(b)(3).

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(b)(3).

24.4.4 2004 Recertification Decision (194.24(b)(3))

	Since there were no additional exclusions of waste components or characteristics since the CCA and DOE adequately incorporated organic ligands as discussed in Section 194(b)(2),
based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determined that DOE continued to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(b)(3).

24.4.5 Changes in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(b)(3))

	DOE's list of waste characteristics and components that were excluded from consideration in the PA has not changed since the 2004 CRA, as noted in section 24.4.2 above (DOE 2009 CRA Section 24.6.4)).

24.4.6 Evaluation of Compliance for 2009 Recertification (194.24(b)(3))

	EPA verified that the excluded waste characteristics and components have not changed since the 2004 CRA.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(b)(3).

24.4.7 2009 Recertification Decision (194.24(b)(3))

	There were no additional exclusions of waste components or characteristics since the 2004 CRA, and DOE continues to adequately incorporate organic ligands as discussed in Section 194(b)(2).  Based on a review and evaluation of the 2009 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0330, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(b)(3).

24.4.8 Changes in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(b)(3))

	DOE's list of waste characteristics and components that were excluded from consideration in the PA has not changed since the 2009 CRA, as noted in Section 24.4.2 above (see 2014 CRA DOE CRA Section 24.8.3).

24.4.9 Evaluation of Compliance for 2014 Recertification (194.24(b)(3))

	EPA verified that the excluded waste characteristics and components have not changed since the 2009 CRA.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(b)(3).

24.4.10 2014 Recertification Decision (194.24(b)(3))

	There were no additional exclusions of waste components or characteristics since the 2009 CRA, and DOE continues to adequately incorporate organic ligands as discussed in Section 194(b)(2).  Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(b)(3).
24.5 Requirements (194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2))

	(c) "For each waste component identified and assessed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the Department shall specify the limiting value (expressed as an upper or lower limit of mass, volume, curies, concentration, etc.), and the associated uncertainty (i.e., margin of error) for each limiting value, of the total inventory of such waste proposed for disposal in the disposal system.  Any compliance application shall:

	(1) Demonstrate that, for the total inventory of waste proposed for disposal in the disposal system, WIPP complies with the numeric requirements of §194.34 and §194.55 for the upper or lower limits (including the associated uncertainties), as appropriate, for each waste component identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and for the plausible combinations of upper and lower limits of such waste components that would result in the greatest estimated release."

	(e) "Waste may be emplaced in the disposal system only if the emplaced components of such waste will not cause:

	(1) The total quantity of waste in the disposal system to exceed the upper limiting 		value, including the associated uncertainty, described in the introductory text to 			paragraph (c) of this section; or

	 (2)  The total quantity of waste that will have been emplaced in the disposal 			system, prior to closure, to fall below the lower limiting value, including the 			associated uncertainty, described in the introductory text to paragraph (c) of this 			section."

24.5.1 1998 Certification  Decision (194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2))

	EPA expected the CCA to specify the limiting value of a given waste component, note whether it is an upper or lower limiting value, and provide the uncertainty associated with each value.  EPA also expected DOE to provide:  plausible combinations of upper and lower limits and a rationale for these limits; the results of modeling code runs; the demonstration of numeric compliance; and the greatest release estimates.

	DOE identified four waste component groupings that require limitations. These waste components groupings and their limiting values are:

     	Ferrous metals (iron) -- minimum of 2x10[7] kilograms

		Cellulosics, rubber, and plastic (CPR) -- maximum of 2x10[7] kilograms total

		Free water emplaced with waste -- maximum of 1684 cubic meters and

		Nonferrous metals (metals other than iron) -- minimum of 2x10[3] kilograms

	EPA evaluated the waste limits provided by DOE and determined that the appropriate components requiring limitation were identified and that the applied waste limits were sufficient.  EPA found that the CCA adequately described model code runs, maximum calculated releases, and release estimates.  EPA also agreed that the PA appropriately accounted for the upper and lower limits because fixed values were used.

	EPA reviewed DOE's description of system controls, chain of custody information, controls in place to track WIPP waste, waste record keeping and accountability systems, and WIPP WAC requirements and controls.  EPA reviewed the CCA and determined that DOE adequately referenced and summarized the WIPP WAC in the CCA (CCA CARD 24).

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Sections 194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2)) can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

24.5.2 Changes in the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(1)) and 194.24(e)(1,2))

	For the 2004 CRA PA, DOE did not make any changes to the limits identified in the CCA or their implementation into the 2004 CRA PA.  In reviewing the 2004 CRA PA, EPA identified that the packaging materials for the INL supercompacted were omitted from the CPR total.  For the PABC, DOE included the packaging material as part of the inventory estimate, although it was above DOE's previously stated CPR limit.  The limited additional packaging CPR did not significantly affect the results of the 2004 PABC.

24.5.3 Evaluation of Compliance for 2004 Recertification (194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2))

	In the CCA, EPA found that DOE identified those waste components that required limits, and that the limits were reasonable and quantifiable.  EPA's main concern was that the waste components being emplaced were maintained at levels necessary to keep the repository in compliance with the disposal standards.  The waste components of special concern are the amounts of CPR and their potential to generate gas that contributed increased pressure in the repository.

	At the rate iron was being placed in the repository, DOE would easily exceed the lower limit necessary.  Other (upper) limits would not be reached until later in the operations at WIPP.  Given this and that PA uses projected values of inventory in the PA, the issue of inventory uncertainty did not impact compliance with the release limits.  However, it could in the future, as the repository approaches disposal capacity.  DOE may change these limits in the future, provided the changes are supported by a compliant performance assessment.

 	This section requires that DOE identify the associated uncertainty for each limiting value.  As with the CCA, DOE did not provide the associated uncertainty for the waste component limits in the 2004 CRA, stating that the waste component limits are fixed values with no associated uncertainties.  EPA identified two issues with this claim of no uncertainty: ensuring that the inventory remains within the limits established by DOE, and that the performance of the repository is not compromised by the uncertainty in the inventory.

	EPA requested that DOE review the issue of uncertainty (Docket A-98-49, Item II-B3-89).  DOE states (ERMS 542308, p. 6, Docket A-98-49, Item II-B2-63) that the "sum of the weights of individual components in a container can at most differ from the total weight of the container by 5 percent."  Thus, DOE now acknowledges that there is a measure of uncertainty, but it appears low.  For the CCA, EPA agreed with this approach since the limiting value could be used to represent the "upper end" of an uncertainty value. However, the lack of information on the waste component inventory is of concern for the future, especially with the CPR materials, since they have the most potential to affect performance.

	While there is no limit on radionuclides, DOE establishes the radionuclide inventory amounts for use in PA.  As stated in the CCA (see CCA CARD 24), EPA considers the radionuclide inventory used in the PA to be a de facto upper bound.  DOE may not place more radionuclide inventory in the repository than what is considered in the most recent compliance performance assessment.  Responding to EPA's query about the quality of the waste estimates used in PA versus waste actually emplaced (Docket A-98-49, Item II-B2-63), DOE addresses a comparison of emplaced waste at three closed TRU waste sites (RFETS, LBL, and MURR).  The comparison indicated a relatively good agreement between the 2004 PABC inventory and the actual radionuclide inventory identified in the WIPP Waste Inventory System. Table 24-10 lists the radionuclides with the greatest inventory at RFETS.

Table 24-10 Comparison of Estimated and Emplaced Inventory of Three Radionuclide at RFETS (Source ERMS 542225 in Docket A-98-49, Item II-B2-63)

Site

Am-241
(Curies)
Pu-239
(Curies)
Pu-240
(Curies)
Total
Curies
RFETS -- WWIS
1.03E+05
2.04E+05
4.63E+04
3.61E+05

RFETS -- PABC estimated inventory
1.15E+05
2.09E+05
4.72E+04
3.79E+05

	In ERMS 542308 (in Docket A-98-49, Item II-B2-63), DOE identifies extremely small errors in the total measured activity for the RFETS inventory, and EPA found the uncertainty characterization as provided to be suspect.  For example, the uncertainty for the total Am-241 is stated to be 127 curies for 103,000 total curies or an uncertainty of 0.12%.  However, for an individual container report, the uncertainty is 1 curie for a 2.8 total curie measurement.  This is an uncertainty of ~35%.  EPA disagreed with DOE's characterization that this is unimportant. While it did not pose and compliance during the 2004 CRA because of the limited emplaced waste, it will be potentially impactful as the WIPP repository approaches capacity, and was identified as an issue that DOE will need to address for the next recertification.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Sections194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2)).

24.5.4  2004 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2))

	EPA found that DOE identified the limits of important waste components, and that the PA implementation was adequate.  Although DOE increased the modeled CPR inventory above its stated limit to include the packaging material, the PABC demonstrated that the effect on performance is limited.  Thus, the 2004 PABC CPR inventory establishes a new CPR limit.

	Since the inventory emplaced in WIPP was at a fraction of the total expected inventory, and since a significant fraction of the inventory was composed of estimated future waste, EPA found that the use of point estimates was acceptable for the waste components and radionuclides for the 2004 recertification and that the inventory and its associated uncertainty fell below the respective limiting values.   The Agency indicated, however, that DOE must demonstrate better knowledge of the measurement uncertainty during the next recertification and include these uncertainties into the PA process.

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA, and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Sections 194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2)).

24.5.5  Changes in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(1)) and 194.24(e)(1,2))

	The only changes related to these requirements for the 2009 CRA are related to changes in the estimated inventory.  As noted in Section 24.5.3 of this CARD, "EPA considers the radionuclide inventory used in the PA as de facto upper limits."  Therefore, the inventory that is used in performance assessment calculations to determine compliance with release standards re-sets the limits on radionuclide emplacement at WIPP.  Also, EPA believes that estimates of waste components set limits on waste emplacement.  CPR that is estimated for each PA inventory establishes the maximum amount of CPR that can be emplaced in the repository."  EPA also emphasized in Section 24.5.4 of this CARD, "Thus, the [2004] PABC CPR inventory establishes a new CPR limit."  When these values are used in a compliant performance assessment, DOE verifies that these waste characteristics, upper and lower limits, still comply with release standards.

	EPA also noted in Section 24.5.3 of this CARD, "EPA's main concern is that the waste components are kept to levels that keep the repository in compliance with the disposal standards," and stated that "DOE needs to better demonstrate knowledge of measurement uncertainty, for the next recertification and include these uncertainties into the PA process."  Between the 2004 CRA and 2009 CRA DOE requested a reduction in the quantity of MgO emplaced with the waste to control repository chemical conditions.  EPA required DOE to perform uncertainty analysis on critical waste components (CPR) to evaluate the potential impact of errors (or uncertainty) in waste estimation on the predicted performance of the repository.  DOE performed this analysis (DOE Appendix MgO-2009 Section MgO-<IP_ADDRESS>) and showed that the uncertainty in the estimation of these waste components is low, and does not have a detrimental impact on repository performance.

24.5.6  Evaluation of Compliance for 2009 Recertification (194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2))

	EPA verified that DOE appropriately continued to identify waste components that require limits, and that these limits continue to be reasonable.  As in the 2004 CRA, upper limits of iron, CPR, etc. are measured at the time waste characterization is performed to prepare waste for shipment to WIPP and the accumulated information is captured in the WIPP waste information system (WWIS).  EPA verified that the WWIS system is adequate for verifying waste emplaced in EPA's annual emplacement inspections (see 2009 CRA CARD 21).  EPA will continue to ensure that the WWIS data is evaluated to assure that waste components emplaced are within the limits established by DOE.

	EPA required DOE to consider the uncertainty of critical waste components when DOE submitted a planned change request to decrease the amount of MgO from 1.67 to 1.2 times the emplaced CPR waste components.  EPA directed DOE to perform an uncertainty analysis to verify that, even with the uncertainty of these waste components included in the performance prediction, a decreased amount of MgO would still ensure control of repository chemistry and safe operation of the WIPP for the long-term.  DOE's analysis (DOE Appendix MgO-2009, Section <IP_ADDRESS>) showed and verified that even with uncertainty considered, compliance with the release standards is demonstrated.  EPA ultimately concurred with DOE's uncertainty analysis and conclusions.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Sections194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2)).

24.5.7  2009 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2))

	EPA finds that DOE continues to identify the limits of important waste components and that the PA implementation is adequate.  Based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA, and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0330, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Sections 194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2)).

24.5.8  Changes in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(1)) and 194.24(e)(1,2))

	DOE noted (2014 CRA DOE Section 24.8.5) that all others limits remain the same except the nonferrous metals limit has been removed. At the time of the CCA DOE introduced the nonferrous metal limit to reduce the impact of organic ligands on the solubility of radionuclides.  Since the 2004 CRA, the effect of organic ligands on actinide solubility has been included in the PA, therefore the nonferrous metal limit is no longer needed.

	Once again, as noted in Section 24.5.3 of this CARD, "EPA considers the radionuclide inventory used in the PA as de facto upper limits."  Therefore, the inventory that is used in performance assessment calculations to determine compliance with release standards re-sets the limits on radionuclide emplacement at WIPP at each recertification.  Also, EPA believes that estimates of waste components set limits on waste emplacement.  For example; CPR that is estimated for each PA inventory establishes the maximum amount of CPR that can be emplaced in the repository."  Thus, the 2014 CRA CPR inventory establishes a new CPR limit.  When these values are used in a compliant performance assessment, DOE verifies that these waste characteristics, upper and lower limits, still comply with release standards.

24.5.9  Evaluation of Compliance for 2014 Recertification (194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2))

	EPA verified that DOE appropriately continued to identify waste components that require limits, and that these limits continue to be reasonable.  As in the 2009 CRA, upper limits of iron, CPR, etc. are measured at the time waste characterization is performed to prepare waste for shipment to WIPP and the accumulated information is captured in the WIPP WDS and the WIPP inventory database. EPA verified that the WDS system and inventory database are adequate for verifying waste emplaced in EPA's annual emplacement inspections (see 2014 CRA CARD 21).  EPA will continue to ensure that the WDS data is evaluated to assure that waste components emplaced are within the limits established by DOE.

	EPA closely examined DOE's removal of the nonferrous metal limit and found that this change is reasonable and appropriate.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Sections194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1) and, (2).

24.5.10  2014 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2))

	EPA continues to find that DOE continues to identify the limits of important waste components and that the PA implementation is adequate.  Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA, and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Sections 194.24(c)(1) and 194.24(e)(1, 2)).

24.6 Requirement (194.24 (c)(2))

      (c)   For each waste component identified and assessed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the Department shall specify the limiting value (expressed as an upper or lower limit of mass, volume, curies, concentration, etc.), and the associated uncertainty (i.e., margin of error) for each limiting value, of the total inventory of such waste proposed for disposal in the disposal system.  Any compliance application shall:

      	(2)  Identify and describe the method(s) used to quantify the limits of waste 			components identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

24.6.1 1998 Certification Decision (194.24 (c)(2))

      To meet this requirement, EPA expected the Compliance Certification Application (CCA) to specify the waste characterization methods used to quantify the limits of certain waste components.  EPA expected the CCA to specify how each method will be used to quantify the amounts of listed waste components, the scale to which the method is applied (e.g., individual waste container, batch, statistical sample of drums, etc.), the instrumentation used and its sensitivity, and the parameter measured and its relationship to the regulated waste component in question.

      EPA also expected the CCA to describe how the data obtained by each method meet or exceed quality assurance indicators or data quality indicators that were assumed or derived relative to waste-related inputs to the PA.  Finally, EPA expected the CCA to demonstrate DOE's ability to quantify each of the listed waste components (for purposes of control, at the precision and accuracy adequate to assure that limiting values will not be exceeded in the inventory shipped to WIPP).  [See additional requirements at Section 194.24(c)(5) of this CARD].  In other words, DOE had to show that the proposed methods can be performed, using the available technology, at the precision and accuracy necessary to quantify the waste components.  The quantification results are then to be summed and tracked against the limiting values to ensure that the limits will not be exceeded.

      To quantify TRU waste components of concern, DOE proposed to use non-destructive assay (NDA), non-destructive examination (NDE) consisting of radiography (RTR) and visual examination (VE).  DOE described numerous NDA instrument systems and described the equipment and instrumentation for RTR and VE found in facilities.  DOE also provided information about performance demonstration programs intended to show that data obtained by each NDA method could meet data quality objectives established by DOE.

	EPA found that these methods, when implemented appropriately, would be adequate to characterize the important waste components.  EPA found DOE to be in compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24 (c)(2).

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Section 194.24(c)(2) can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

24.6.2 Changes in the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(2))

      As noted in Section 194.24(b), DOE did not modify the list of CCA components and characteristics requiring quantification.  Therefore, the 2004 CRA did not identify any significant changes to the measurement techniques used in the waste characterization program (i.e., VE, RTR, AK, NDA).  Also, the 2004 CRA did not propose changes to the current waste characterization program through the use of different NDA and NDE characterization methodologies.  The 2004 CRA indicated that the location of NDA and NDE methodology documentation had changed since the CCA, with both the Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) and Methods Manual supplanted by the CH-Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) and the Waste Analysis Plan (WAP).  EPA was aware of this shift in source information location.  The 2004 CRA revised some of the information presented in the CCA with respect to quality assurance objectives (QAOs).  The 2004 CRA, however, included the following changes to the characterization program as presented in the CCA.

      With respect to Waste Characterization (2004 CRA Chapter 4), DOE removed references to specific characterization methodologies, including statements that measurements shall be obtained on a waste container basis.  DOE also modified a diagram that previously described the waste characterization program hierarchy, and replaced it with the QA document hierarchy@; previously this diagram showed 40 CFR 191/194 CCA requirements as being represented in the WAC, but the 2004 CRA shows the requirements of 40 CFR 194 as ultimately feeding to the Quality Assurance Program Document (QAPD).  DOE also revised the 2004 CRA to include a description of the 194.8 approval process (Sections 4.1.2 and 4.4 of the 2004 CRA).

      The 2004 CRA mentioned the then-pending RH waste characterization program.  The 2004 CRA provided no description of the proposed RH Waste Characterization Program, stating only on page 4-54 that ANo RH-TRU waste had been shipped to the WIPP at the time of 2004 CRA.  EPA approval of DOE=s proposed RH-TRU characterization procedure is pending.
24.6.3 Evaluation of Compliance for 2004 Recertification (194.24(c)(2))

      Since the 1998 Certification Decision, the waste characterization program has been implemented at several DOE waste generator sites.  This represents a change in activities since approval of the CCA, since only LANL was approved at that time.  Between the CCA and 2004 CRA, EPA approved waste characterization activities at the larger generator sites namely, the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant, Hanford, Idaho National Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site, and the small generator sites namely, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Nevada Test Site. These sites continue to characterize CH-TRU waste for disposal at WIPP.  Three DOE sites - Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Argonne National Laboratory  -  East and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, have completed CH-TRU waste characterization and no longer ship CH-TRU waste to WIPP for disposal.  The CRA summarized DOE site audit and inspection information in Chapters 5 and Appendix QAPD.  Table 8-1 of CARD 8, includes a summary of EPA waste characterization inspections completed at different sites as of December 2005.  On July 16, 2004, EPA modified their 194.8 inspection process to streamline inspection activities and allow site-specific flexibility.  This change, however, did not modify the fundamentals or contents of the inspection process.

      EPA approved several changes to DOE's waste characterization program since the 1998 Certification Decision.  The changes did not significantly alter the CH-TRU waste characterization program contained in the CCA and related documents and references.  These include:

      	Modification of Appendix A of the CH-WAC to include AK and NDA measurement requirements.   (EPA Docket A98-49, II-B3-22)

      	Allowance of RTR and no VE of newly-generated/packaged waste (EPA Docket A98-49, II-B3-49)

      	Addition of new Appendix (Appendix E) to the CH-WAC implementing payload management (i.e., inclusion of <100 nCi/g drummed waste with >100 nCi/g drummed waste from the same waste stream in a payload container, ten-drum overpack). (EPA Docket A98-49, II-B3-58)

      	Submission of the RH waste characterization program implementation plan (WCPIP).  EPA approved the RH framework in WCPIP and identified pre-requisite steps. (EPA Docket A98-49, II-B2-21)

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(c)(2).

24.6.4 2004 Recertification decision (194.24(c)(2))

      Based on a review of the 2004 CRA, including the new information and references presented therein, EPA agreed that the methods used to quantify the limits of waste components had not changed substantially since the 1998 Certification Decision.  The Agency kept abreast of all the changes to the program, including information source document changes that transpired after EPA's 1998 Certification Decision.  Changes implemented up to the 2002 CH-WAC and WAP referenced in the CCA have not affected the sites' abilities to adequately quantify waste components in individual containers.  DOE, therefore, will continue to require each waste site to characterize radiological contents of every container of CH waste streams destined for WIPP disposal using the EPA-approved NDA systems.  Similarly, each site will continue to examine each TRU waste container to ensure absence of prohibited items using the EPA-approved RTR and/or VE procedures.

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(c)(2).

24.6.5 Changes in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(2))

      Since the 2004 recertification decision, DOE continues to implement the CH waste characterization program at the TRU sites.  The AK process and waste characterization measurement techniques (that is, VE, RTR, and NDA) have not significantly changed.  Since the 2004 Recertification decision, TRU sites have disposed of RH waste at the WIPP which were characterized using RH-specific AK process measurement techniques approved by EPA.

24.6.6 Evaluation of Compliance for 2009 Recertification (194.24(c)(2))

      Following the July 16, 2004, promulgation of the modifications to the 40 CFR 194.8-prescribed inspection process, EPA conducted baseline inspections and Tier 1 (T1) evaluations of the CH-TRU waste characterization activities at the previously approved TRU generator sites.  In addition, EPA performed baseline inspections and T1 evaluations of the RH-TRU waste characterization activities.  Table 8-1 of 2009 CRA CARD 8, includes a summary of EPA waste characterization inspections completed at different sites (EPA 2010i).

      Based on a review of the 2009 CRA, including the new information and references presented therein, EPA agrees that the methods used to quantify the limits of waste components have not changed substantially for CH and RH wastes since the 1998 Certification Decision.

      The RH waste characterization processes implemented by the Central Characterization Project (CCP) and approved by EPA are different than those discussed in the RH Waste Characterization Program Implementation Plan (WCPIP).  EPA and DOE HQ staff agreed that the current WCPIP did not reflect characterization activities occurring at the sites therefore it was necessary to revise the WCPIP before it is implemented at new RH sites.  EPA, therefore, asked DOE to revise the WCPIP and seek EPA concurrence before its implementation.  With one specific exception (baseline waste characterization at the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory), DOE may not characterize waste at any new RH TRU site until these revisions are finalized Using the revised processes, RH TRU sites would quantify the radiological and physical contents of the waste to demonstrate compliance.

      EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(c)(2).

24.6.7 2009 Recertification decision (194.24(c)(2))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2009 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(c)(2).

24.6.8 Changes in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(2))

      Since the 2009 recertification decision, DOE continues to implement the CH waste characterization program at the TRU sites.  The AK process and waste characterization measurement techniques (that is, VE, RTR, and NDA) have not significantly changed.  DOE continued to dispose of RH waste at the WIPP which were characterized using RH-specific AK process measurement techniques approved by EPA. See 2014 CRA DOE Section 24.8.5 for container changes and document revisions.

24.6.9 Evaluation of Compliance for 2014 Recertification (194.24(c)(2))

      Based on a review of the 2014 CRA, including the new information and references presented therein, EPA agrees that the methods used to quantify the limits of waste components have not changed substantially for CH and RH wastes since the 1998 Certification Decision.

      EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(c)(2).

24.6.10 2014 Recertification decision (194.24(c)(2))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(c)(2).

24.7 Background (194.24(c)(3))

      Section 194.24(c)(3) requires DOE to demonstrate that the use of process knowledge to quantify components in the waste conforms with the QA requirements found in '194.22.

24.7.1 Requirement (194.24(c)(3))

      (c)  For each waste component identified and assessed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the Department shall specify the limiting value (expressed as an upper or lower limit of mass, volume, curies, concentration, etc.), and the associated uncertainty (i.e., margin of error) for each limiting value, of the total inventory of such waste proposed for disposal in the disposal system.  Any compliance application shall:

      	(3)  Provide information which demonstrates that the use of process knowledge to 		quantify components in waste for disposal conforms with the quality assurance 			requirements found in Section 194.22.

24.7.2   1998 Certification Decision (194.24(c)(3))

       EPA expected the compliance application to: provide information used in connection with control of the use of process knowledge; cite objective evidence substantiating the degree of implementation of quality assurance for each generator site that is approved to use process knowledge for characterization; and provide an implementation plan for application of quality assurance requirements to process knowledge at remaining sites.

      At the time of the 1998 Certification Decision, EPA determined that DOE adequately described the use of acceptable knowledge only for legacy debris waste at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).  DOE did not demonstrate compliance with Section 194.24 (c)(3) for any other waste streams at LANL or for waste at any other waste generator site.  EPA instituted Condition 3 of the 1998 Certification Decision which requires EPA to determine that for any other LANL waste streams and any other site, DOE has provided information on how acceptable knowledge (AK) will be used for waste characterization of the waste stream(s) proposed for disposal at WIPP.

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Section 194.24(c)(3) can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

24.7.3 Changes in the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(3))

The 2004 CRA was revised to indicate that the AK process is now presented in the CH-WAC.  The CH-WAC has been revised to include more discussion of AK with respect to radionuclides (Appendix A).  Modifications made to the CH-WAC since the CCA that are pertinent to AK include, but are not limited to, are the following:

      Use of existing (i.e., AK) information describing radiological and physical contents of the waste collected prior to the implementation of a quality assurance (QA) program under 40 CFR 194.22(a) may be qualified in accordance with an alternative methodology and employs one or more of the following methods: peer review, corroborating data, confirmatory testing, and collection of data under an equivalent QA program.

 Methods for confirming isotopic ratios using AK (i.e., methods pertinent to sites generating weapons grade plutonium vs. heat grade).

 Required and supplemental AK documentation

 Discrepancy resolution and data limitation identification

 AK- radioassay data measurement comparisons as a means to assess comparability

      These modifications effectively focused the CH-WAC to address specific allowances and requirements with respect to AK applicable to radionuclide data, but the overall AK process is still contained in the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (HWFP) Waste Assessment Plan (WAP).  The revised WAP has retained most of the AK requirements of data assembly, compilation, etc. included in the CCA documentation.  Also, it is structured differently to include several provisions either not originally included in the CCA Appendix WAP or worded differently than what was presented in the CCA documents.  These include but are not limited to the following:

 proceduralization of requirements

 modifications with respect to visual verification

 sealed source characterization based on AK

24.7.4 Evaluation of Compliance for 2004 Recertification (194.24(c)(3))

      The EPA WIPP regulations require DOE to provide information which demonstrates that the use of process knowledge to quantify components in waste for disposal conforms with the quality assurance requirements found in 194.22.  For example, 194.22(b) requires that the use of data collected prior to implementation of a QA program as described in section (a) must be qualified by an alternative methodology such as corroborating data, confirmatory testing, peer review, or demonstration that an equivalent QA program was place at the time of data acquisition.  At TRU waste sites, process knowledge/acceptable knowledge (PK/AK) data for all legacy waste was obtained prior to the establishment of an EPA-approved QA program; therefore, confirmation of PK/AK data by analyzing TRU waste containers using the EPA-approved assay equipment is necessary.  EPA found that the information presented in the CRA for 194.24(c)(3) was adequate, and that adherence by TRU waste sites to the CRA-based AK process would allow them to meet their regulatory obligation.

      Some of the changes to the AK program were made to better define the use of AK (i.e., CH-WAC Appendix A), and EPA was kept abreast of these modifications to ensure that they do not compromise compliance with EPA regulations.  Most of the changes presented in the 2004 CRA, however, are to recognize DOE=s election to move requirements demonstrating compliance between various documents, and eliminate text within the 2004 CRA that may be repeated in these documents.  For example, the quality assurance objectives (QAOs) are included in the HWFP WAP and CH WAC (Appendix A), and were therefore removed from the body of the 2004 CRA text.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(c)(3).

24.7.5 2004 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(3))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(c)(3).

24.7.6 Changes in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(3))

      Between 2004 CRA and 2009 CRA no changes were made to the WAC to address AK-related issues.

24.7.7 Evaluation of Compliance for 2009 Recertification (194.24(c)(3))

      EPA is requiring TRU waste generator sites to prepare a detailed AK Summary (AKS) document containing all waste-specific information in one place with properly cited references.  The site-specific AK Summary document is widely used in the field by site personnel identifying and measuring radiological contents and estimating weights of individual waste material parameters.  EPA has suggested that information not necessarily needed by the above site personnel could be included in appendices and adequately referenced.  The AKS document prepared in this manner will facilitate EPA review.  Also, it can be a useful source document for Site Program Manager, (NDA) Expert, non-destructive evaluation (NDE) Expert, if they find a need for additional background information, explanation, justification, rationale, etc.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(c)(3).

24.7.7 2009 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(3))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2009 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0330, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(c)(3).

24.7.8 Changes in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(3))

      Since the CRA-2009, the AK process has not changed for CH and RH waste (2104 CRA DOE Section 24.8.6 and 24.6.7). The DOE has added a gravimetric or dimensional analysis for RH unique waste streams where the activity on or within a waste stream is identified as discreet pieces of irradiated materials to estimate the activity content of the waste container or to confirm AK information for the same measurements.

24.7.9 Evaluation of Compliance for 2014 Recertification (194.24(c)(3))

      EPA is requiring TRU waste generator sites to prepare a detailed AK Summary (AKS) document containing all waste-specific information in one place with properly cited references.  The site-specific AK Summary document is widely used in the field by site personnel identifying and measuring radiological contents and estimating weights of individual waste material parameters.  EPA has suggested that information not necessarily needed by the above site personnel could be included in appendices and adequately referenced.  The AKS document prepared in this manner will facilitate EPA review.  Also, it can be a useful source document for Site Program Manager, (NDA) Expert, Non-destructive Evaluation (NDE) Expert, if they find a need for additional background information, explanation, justification, rationale, etc.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(c)(3).

24.7.10 2014 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(3))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(c)(3).

24.8 Requirement (194.24(c)(4))

      (c)  For each waste component identified and assessed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the Department shall specify the limiting value (expressed as an upper or lower limit of mass, volume, curies, concentration, etc.), and the associated uncertainty (i.e., margin of error) for each limiting value, of the total inventory of such waste proposed for disposal in the disposal system.  Any compliance application shall:

      (4)  Provide information which demonstrates that a system of controls has been 			and will continue to be implemented to confirm that the total amount of each 			waste component that will be emplaced in the disposal system will not exceed the 			upper limiting value or fall below the lower limiting value described in the 			introductory text paragraph (c) of this section.  The system of controls shall 			include, but shall not be limited to: Measurement; sampling; chain of custody 			records; record keeping systems; waste loading schemes used; and other 				documentation.

24.8.1 1998 Certification Decision (194.24(c)(4))

      EPA expected the compliance application to describe:  (1) a system for maintaining centralized control over the waste characterization activities; (2) a mechanism for maintaining chain of custody over waste and waste records; (3) controls in place for receipt of waste at the WIPP; (4) a record keeping/accounting/tracking system for controlling limited waste components for verification of emplaced waste; and (5) describe all requirements or controls (i.e., waste acceptance criteria) that are relevant to compliance with 40 CFR Part 194.  EPA expected the CCA to discuss evidence (auditable records) necessary for inspection substantiating compliance with WAC limits set under '194.24, showing that waste components for which inventory limits were set are monitored, controlled, and accounted for in a systematic and traceable manner.

      DOE described the system of controls for waste characterization activities and required that these be conducted in accordance with approved documentation that describes the management, operations and QA aspects of the program.  DOE also indicated that conformance with applicable regulatory (Federal and State), programmatic and operational requirements is monitored by the DOE/CBFO audit and surveillance program.

      DOE provided descriptions of the documentation, data fields, and features of the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS).  The WWIS is DOE's record keeping and accounting system for tracking waste components and associated uncertainties, controlling limited waste components for verification of placement of the waste in WIPP, and providing notification before the waste component limits are exceeded, in accordance with 40 CFR 194.24(e)(1) and (2).  In addition, in the WWIS, DOE identified a sample of 17 waste material parameters fields relevant to compliance that are included in the more than 130 parameters tracked in the WWIS.

      DOE described the controls in place to determine completeness and accuracy of the waste container-specific information and a process to identify and resolve discrepancies before receipt of waste at the WIPP.  DOE described the type of records for each waste container managed at WIPP that must be maintained for waste characterization purposes as part of the WIPP operating record which to be backed up, secured, and archived.  The audit process in the CCA provided on-site verification of characterization procedures, data package preparation and record keeping.

      EPA determined that DOE provided an adequate description of the system (controls and processes) for maintaining centralized command and control over waste characterization activities.  At the time of the 1998 Certification Decision, EPA was able to inspect and verify that LANL had demonstrated an adequate system of controls.  Conditions 2 and 3 of the 1998 Certification Decision specified that DOE was prohibited from shipping waste for disposal at WIPP until EPA approved site-specific waste characterization programs and controls.

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Section 194.24(c)(4) can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

24.8.2 Changes in the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(4))

	According to the 2004 CRA, while the WWIS used the Oracle (Version 7) database management system at the time of the CCA, the current computing system used Oracle (Version 9) but otherwise remained unchanged.  DOE also inserted a statement in the 2004 CRA that [a]dditional computing system upgrades may be implemented in the future."

      CCA and 2004 CRA Section 4.3.2 included a sample of the more than 130 important parameters tracked in the WWIS at the time of the 2004 CRA.  The data fields listed in 2004 CRA were a subset of the total list included in the WWIS data tracking system.  EPA examined the WAP and WWIS users manual and verified that DOE is tracking more than 130 data fields in the WWIS.  EPA was able to verify that the parameters listed in 2004 CRA Section 4.3.2 were included in the WWIS tracking system, plus many more parameters.

      Section 5.0 of the 2004 CRA Appendix TRU WASTE (Page 52) briefly describes the WWIS as part of a system of controls that address the requirements of 40 CFR '194.24(c)(4) and (5), requirements for computer software for nuclear facility applications.

      The WWIS was only used for the CH-TRU program, and did not include all data fields required for the disposal of RH-TRU waste.  According to Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the 2004 CRA (Page 9-148), WWIS would be modified by the addition of data fields to meet additional tracking and control requirements imposed on RH-TRU waste by the LWA.

24.8.3 Evaluation of Compliance for 2004 Recertification (194.24(c)(4))

      EPA determined that the general description of the WWIS in the CRA was adequate.  Hardware modifications and software upgrades described in the CRA were necessary to maintain system reliability, security, and performance.  EPA reviewed the WWIS during its inspections of the WIPP and TRU waste generator sites and was aware of the changes made to the WWIS since the CCA.  EPA determined that the WWIS adequately gathers, stores, and processes information pertaining to TRU waste destined for or disposed of at the WIPP.

      DOE stated that a majority of the 130 WWIS data fields were pertinent to demonstrate compliance with TRU waste transportation and disposal requirements.  EPA verified that DOE has adequately tracked more than these 130 data fields in the WWIS and that DOE had not changed its tracking methodology and in fact has added parameters to be tracked in the WWIS.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(c)(4).

24.8.4 2004 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(4))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determined that DOE continued to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(c)(4).

24.8.5 Changes in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(4))

	Since 2004 CRA, DOE revised WWIS to add the ability to track RH TRU waste as required by the LWA.  Also, DOE updated the WWIS and renamed it the Waste Data System (WDS).  The WDS is a web-based software system used by the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) to gather, store, and process information pertaining to contact-handled (CH) and remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) waste. The WDS is used to create and store documentation about waste containers, shipments, and emplacement information at WIPP. The WDS includes all of the elements that were implemented in the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS) to meet regulatory requirements for the operation of WIPP.

24.8.6 Evaluation of Compliance for 2009 Recertification (194.24(c)(4))

      EPA reviewed the WWIS modification to track RH waste content information from generators to the repository and found this change is acceptable.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(c)(4).

24.8.7 2009 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(4))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2009 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0330, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the waste data tracking requirements for Section 194.24(c)(4).

24.8.8 Changes in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(4))

	The WWIS was retired in December 2009, and replaced with the WDS to provide DOE with a modern approach to process controls and data sharing. The WDS uses Oracle
DB 11g.  The WDS is used by DOE to comply with the 194.24(c)(4) requirements.

24.8.9 Evaluation of Compliance for 2014 Recertification (194.24(c)(4))

      EPA reviewed the WDS by annual inspections to determine its ability to track waste content information from generators to the repository and found this change is acceptable.

      EPA performed baseline, Tier 1 change and continued compliance inspections at all operational sites listed in Table 8-1 of CARD 8. Continued compliance inspections are shown in italic, some of which were unannounced type. EPA concluded that waste characterization of WIPP bound waste is according to the requirements of this section and using the EPA approved systems of controls  -  processes, procedures and equipment.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(c)(4).

24.8.10 2014 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(4))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014 -0609), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the waste data tracking requirements for Section 194.24(c)(4).

24.9 Requirement (194.24(c)(5))

      (c)  For each waste component identified and assessed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the Department shall specify the limiting value (expressed as an upper or lower limit of mass, volume, curies, concentration, etc.), and the associated uncertainty (i.e., margin of error) of each limiting value, of the total inventory of such waste proposed for disposal in the disposal system.  Any compliance application shall:

      	(5) Identify and describe such controls delineated in paragraph (c)(4) of this 			section and confirm that they are applied in accordance with the quality assurance 			requirements found in 194.22.

24.9.1 1998 Certification Decision (194.24(c)(5))

      EPA expected DOE to provide a description of all Performance Demonstration Programs (PDPs) used to certify the capability and comparability of radiological measurements at waste generator sites, and to provide standardized waste characterization methodologies, if not provided under '194.24(c)(2).  EPA also expected DOE to cite objective evidence of the status of current implementation methods or procedures.  Finally, EPA expected the CCA to include documentation of QA for waste characterization activities from the point of generation (for to-be-generated waste) to the point of disposal at the WIPP.

      See Section 194.22(a)(2)(I) in CARD 22, Quality Assurance for additional discussion of quality assurance for waste characterization activities.

	DOE described the Performance Demonstration Program (PDP) for NDA designed to ensure compliance with the Quality Assurance Objectives identified in the QAPP by providing a test program that each generator site must pass prior to waste shipment.  The PDP was crucial because it was the only means of qualifying some of the NDA equipment (which was state-of-the-art and first-of-a-kind in most cases).  The PDP was a multiple (approximately 12)-cycle program for a site's NDA system(s) to test their ability to detect radionuclides from various source standards in different waste matrices.  Each site must demonstrate its measurement performance on a semiannual basis.  CBFO was the reviewing and approving authority for the PDP and used the PDP to assess, evaluate, and approve DOE facilities for waste measurement and characterization before the waste was shipped to the WIPP.  The PDP standards addressed activity ranges relative to WAC limits, quality assurance program plan (QAPP) QAOs, and NDA method detection limits.  The isotopes analyzed under this program included, but were not limited to, [238]Pu, [239]Pu, [240]Pu and [241]Am.  When a site passed a particular PDP cycle, the site demonstrated its ability to accurately assay waste contained in a matrix for which the PDP test matrix was representative.

	EPA reviewed the updated PDP Plan for NDA and concluded that DOE provided adequate information regarding the PDP for NDA.  However, in its CCA, DOE did not provide the status of the current implementation of PDPs at the generator sites in the application.  This information was only available for LANL and RFETS at the time of inspections.

      The QAPP did not contain specific radiological waste characterization (i.e., NDA) procedures, but did provide VE and RTR procedures that can be found in QAPP Chapter 10.  Each generator site, when performing radiological characterization using NDA methods, is responsible for meeting the data quality requirements outlined in the QAPP.

      EPA confirmed through inspections at LANL that the system of controls and in particular, the measurement techniques were adequate to characterize waste and ensure compliance with the limits of waste components, and also that a QA program had been established and executed in conformance with NQA requirements.  Moreover, DOE demonstrated that the WWIS was a functional system at LANL.  During the CCA review process, DOE had not demonstrated compliance with these requirements for any other waste generator site.

      DOE did not provide documentation of QA for waste characterization activities from the point of generation (for to-be-generated waste) to the point of emplacement and disposal at the WIPP.  Instead, DOE implemented a QA program by preparing several QA procedural documents and conducting audits.  These QA documents were described further in CARD 22, Quality Assurance.

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Section 194.24(c)(5) can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

24.9.2 Changes in the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(5))

      DOE described the changes to the PDP program in Section <IP_ADDRESS> PDP (pg 4-49) of the 2004 CRA.  There were three significant changes in this section relative to the CCA; a) the QAPP was no longer referenced as the document defining the PDP QAO requirements, b) the PDP Plan had been removed as a reference and replaced by the statement that the PDP NDA plans are revised as required, and c) the section no longer contained a detailed description of the isotopes to be analyzed and the configuration of the PDP tests.  Additionally, the PDP tests had been changed from a semi-annual to an annual schedule, a change of which EPA was previously notified.  DOE also changed the item that was approved by the PDP test.  The CCA stated that waste analysis can only be performed by measurement facilities that have demonstrated acceptable performance in the PDP.  In the 2004 CRA, this was changed to NDA analysis of drums or boxes is performed by measurement systems that have demonstrated acceptable PDP performance.  This wording change applied the PDP results to equipment rather than a facility.

      DOE also revised the Quality Document hierarchy for waste characterization activities by making the CBFO quality assurance program document (QAPD) a higher tier document, and the QAPP of lesser importance.   This new document hierarchy was shown in 2004 CRA Figure 4-3, which replaced CCA Figure 4-6.

24.9.3 Evaluation of Compliance for 2004 Recertification (194.24(c)(5))

      The QAPP and the Methods Manual were replaced by the WAC, as noted in previous sections of this document.  EPA was aware of these changes to the program requirements documents.  The wording changes regarding the description of the PDP test and the removal of the PDP plan did not affect EPA's ability to ensure that DOE had implemented a series of intercomparability tests for NDA equipment that developed similar results.  The elimination of the PDP test description from the 2004 CRA required that DOE makes available to EPA the PDP plans and test descriptions so that EPA could ensure that the program was indeed acting as a true blind sample program.  The change in PDP certification from the facility to the equipment is acceptable, since facilities often used multiple sets of NDA equipment to meet the expedited waste shipment schedule.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.25(c)(5).

24.9.4 2004 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(5))

      EPA continued to ensure, through audits and inspections, that the waste characterization program meets QA controls sufficiently.  The inspection program was the primary method by which EPA determined the implementation of QA controls to the waste characterization program.

      DOE's changes to the PDP program did not affect EPA's ability to assess the implementation of quality controls to the waste characterization program.  The wording changes allow DOE more flexibility in developing PDP test now that the initial series of test have been completed since the CCA.  The changes to the QA document hierarchy did not lessen the implementation of quality controls to the waste characterization program.

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determined that DOE continued to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(c)(5).

24.9.5 Changes in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(5))

      Since 2004, DOE made the following changes to the PDP: (1) the QAPP is no longer referenced as the document defining the PDP QAO requirements, (2) the PDP Plan was removed as a reference and replaced by the statement that "the NDA PDP plans are revised as required," and (3) the section no longer contains a detailed description of the isotopes to be analyzed and the configuration of the PDP tests.  These are acceptable.

24.9.6 Evaluation of Compliance for 2009 Recertification (194.24(c)(5))

	These changes do not affect compliance with 40 CFR 194.24(c)(5)

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.25(c)(5).

24.9.7 2009 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(5))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2009 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0330, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(c)(5).

24.9.8 Changes in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(c)(5))

      Since the 2009 CRA, DOE made the following changes to the PDP:

To "...both the Performance Demonstration Program Plan for Nondestructive Assay of Boxed Wastes for the TRU Waste Characterization Program, Revision 3 (U.S. DOE 2011c) and the Performance Demonstration Program Plan for Nondestructive Assay of Drummed Wastes for the TRU Waste Characterization Program, Revision 3 (U.S. DOE 2011d) have been revised. The most important changes to these documents were implemented to simplify sample preparation team requirements and instructions, better define the process to address failures of the tested NDA systems to meet NDA PDP criteria, single out the non-interfering matrix standard waste box and non-interfering matrix drum as distinct from other matrices tested and define their use for specialized circumstances, and to improve the descriptions of NDA PDP components and inventory of materials. The Performance Demonstration Program Plan for Analysis of
Simulated Headspace Gases, Revision 7 (U.S. DOE 2010d) has also been revised since CRA-2009 to implement a change removing the compound cis-1,2-dichloroethylene from the target compound list." (2014 CRA DOE Section 24.8.8). These are acceptable.

24.9.9 Evaluation of Compliance for 2014 Recertification (194.24(c)(5))

	These changes updates to PDP documents and do not affect compliance with 40 CFR 194.24(c)(5)

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.25(c)(5).

24.9.10 2014 Recertification Decision (194.24(c)(5))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(c)(5).
24.10  Requirements (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	(d) "The Department shall include a waste loading scheme in any compliance application, or else performance assessments conducted pursuant to § 194.32 and compliance assessments conducted pursuant to § 194.54 shall assume random placement of waste in the disposal system."

	(f) "Waste emplacement shall conform to the assumed waste loading conditions, if any, used in performance assessments conducted pursuant to §194.32 and compliance assessments conducted pursuant to §194.54."

24.10.1 1998 Certification Decision (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	EPA examined the CCA to determine whether DOE provided a final plan for waste loading that addresses the emplacement of radioactive waste and implements any assumptions about the distribution of the waste that were used in the performance assessment.  EPA expected DOE to cross-reference the waste distribution assumptions from the waste loading plan with the waste distribution assumptions used in the PA.  Finally, EPA examined DOE's description of how the planned distribution of waste (as assumed in the PA) would be achieved.  This discussion should identify both the acceptance criteria for implementation and the controls that will be in place to assure proper implementation of the plan.

	EPA determined that, because DOE had (1) assumed random waste loading and (2) evaluated the potential consequences resulting from the non-random loading of the highest-activity waste stream containing at least 810 drums, a final waste loading plan was in fact unnecessary.  EPA determined that DOE was therefore not required to describe how the planned distribution of radioactive waste (as assumed in the PAs) would be achieved because the random distribution of waste containers in the WIPP resulted in compliance (i.e., it did not matter to compliance how the drums were placed in the WIPP).  EPA therefore concluded that DOE adequately cross-referenced the resultant waste distribution assumptions from the waste loading plan with the waste distribution assumptions used in the PA (CCA CARD 24).

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Sections 194.24(d) and 194.24(f) can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

24.10.2 Changes in the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	DOE did not use a performance based waste loading scheme for waste emplacement and DOE assumed random waste loading in its performance and compliance assessments.  Prior to the 2004 CRA, EPA requested that DOE analyze waste loading with respect to supercompacted waste, and DOE identified that clustering of waste would not affect performance (Docket A-98-49, Item II-B3-64; Item B-2-31; also see Docket A-98-49, Item II-B3-68).

24.10.3 Evaluation of Compliance for 2004 Recertification (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	In performance assessments to date, DOE has assumed random waste emplacement.  In the CCA, EPA asked for additional analysis assuming clustering of waste.  DOE did an analysis and showed that clustering of even higher than average waste streams would not significantly affect results.  Indeed, RFETS waste was eventually clustered in the WIPP, (Docket A-98-49, Item II-B2-31).  In addition, EPA required DOE to conduct another analysis assuming non-random waste emplacement as part of the review of supercompacted waste from INL.  The results again showed that non-random placement of waste was not significant (e.g., CRA Appendix PA Attachment MASS 21.0).  Thus, no waste loading assumptions are necessary in performance assessment calculations.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Sections 194.24(d) and 194.24(f).

24.10.4 2004 Recertification Decision (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), and because DOE has shown that waste loading assumptions are not necessary for use in PA, EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Sections 194.24(d) and 194.24(f).

24.10.5 Changes in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	In the 2009 CRA DOE continues to not use a performance based waste loading scheme for waste emplacement and DOE assumed random waste loading in its performance and compliance assessments

24.10.6 Evaluation of Compliance for 2009 Recertification (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	In performance assessments to date, DOE continues to assume random waste emplacement.  In the CCA and in the 2004 CRA, EPA asked for additional analysis assuming clustering of waste.  DOE did an analysis and showed that clustering of even higher than average waste streams would not significantly affect results.  The results of these analyses showed that non-random placement of waste was not significant.  Thus, no waste loading assumptions continue to be necessary in performance assessment calculations.

      Commenters noted the additional ten-drum overpacks (TDOPs) which will be used to ship wastes that are high in carbon tetrachloride, and questioned whether a waste loading study was needed in order to determine their impact.  Significant numbers of TDOPs are already emplaced in the underground, and any additional packaging and emplacement materials are adequately tracked by the Waste Data System (WDS).  For these reasons, EPA determines that no further consideration of waste-loading is necessary.

	EPA did not receive any additional public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Sections 194.24(d) and 194.24(f).

24.10.7 2009 Recertification Decision (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2009 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0330, Air Docket A-98-49), and because DOE has shown that waste loading assumptions are not necessary for use in PA, EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Sections 194.24(d) and 194.24(f) for the 2007 recertification.

24.10.8 Changes in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	In the 2014 CRA DOE continues to not use a performance based waste loading scheme for waste emplacement (194.24(d) and DOE assumed random waste loading in its performance and compliance assessments (194.24(f) (2014 CRA DOE Section 24.8.9).

24.10.9 Evaluation of Compliance for 2014 Recertification (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	In performance assessments to date, DOE continues to assume random waste emplacement and does not assume a waste loading scheme (2014 CRA Appendix MASS-2014, Section MASS-19.0).

	EPA did not receive any additional public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Sections 194.24(d) and 194.24(f).

24.10.10 2014 Recertification Decision (194.24(d) and 194.24(f))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609), and because DOE has shown that waste loading assumptions are not necessary for use in PA, EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Sections 194.24(d) and 194.24(f) for the 2007 recertification.

24.11 Requirement (194.24 (g))

	(g) "The Department shall demonstrate in any compliance application that the total inventory of waste emplaced in the disposal system complies with the limitations on transuranic waste disposal described in the WIPP LWA."
24.11.1 1998 Certification Decision (194.24 (g))

	EPA expected the compliance application to describe the WIPP waste inventory in terms of the units specified in the limitations of the LWA and to describe how these limitations will be assured through implementation of the required system of controls.  DOE identified the following limits:

     	Curie limits for RH-TRU waste: 5.1 million curies (app. 19.8 x 10[16] Becquerels).

		Total capacity of RH and CH-TRU waste that may be disposed:  6.2 million cubic feet (175,564 cubic meters).

     	Waste will not exceed 1,000 rem per hour, no more than 5 percent by volume of RH will exceed 100 rem per hour, and RH will not exceed 23 curies per liter.

	DOE provided numerous tables that presented the WIPP waste inventory in terms of curies and total volumes.  In addition, DOE presented information pertaining to the WIPP WWIS, which tracks and controls waste emplaced in WIPP.  EPA reviewed this information, which included the process DOE outlined for controlling the waste and the use of the WWIS, and determined that DOE had an adequate program for tracking and controlling the waste (CCA CARD 24).

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Section 194.24(g) can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

24.11.2 Evaluation of Compliance for 2004 Recertification (194.24 (g))

	DOE had several years of experience with the WWIS and, through EPA's inspections, DOE has shown the WWIS to be effective in tracking and controlling waste disposed of at WIPP. Results of EPA inspections related to the WWIS can be found in Docket A-98-49, Category II-A1, Category II-A4, and Category II-B3.  DOE had not characterized or shipped any RH-TRU waste at this time, but it would have to meet WIPP waste acceptance criteria in a process similar to CH-TRU waste.

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(g).

24.11.3 2004 Recertification Decision (194.24 (g))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determined that DOE continued to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(g).

24.11.4 Changes in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(g)

	The limits specified in the WIPP LWA have not changed and DOE's use of the WWIS has not changed.

24.11.5 Evaluation of Compliance for 2009 Recertification (194.24 (g))

	EPA continued to verify that DOE is using the WWIS to keep track of waste emplaced at the WIPP repository in its annual emplacement inspections (see 2009 CRA CARD 21, Table 21-3).  These annual inspections confirm that DOE continues the ability to comply with Section 194.24 (g)

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(g).

24.11.6 2009 Recertification Decision (194.24 (g))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2009 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0330, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(g).

24.11.7 Changes in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (194.24(g)

	The limits specified in the WIPP LWA have not changed.  The WWIS was replaced by the WDS in December of 2009 which includes all of the elements of the WWIS (see 2014 CRA DOE Section 24.8.7 and 2014 CRA Appendix MON-2014, Section MON-3.6).  DOE's use of the WDS is the same as the WWIS, therefore DOE continues to monitor and calculate the limits on waste disposal as required by 194.24(g).

24.11.8 Evaluation of Compliance for 2014 Recertification (194.24 (g))

	EPA continued to verify that DOE is using the WDS to keep track of waste emplaced at the WIPP repository in its annual emplacement inspections (see 2014 CRA CARD 21, Table 21-5).  These annual inspections confirm that DOE continues the ability to comply with Section 194.24 (g)

	EPA did not receive any public comments on DOE's continued compliance with the requirements of Section 194.24(g).

24.11.9 2014 Recertification Decision (194.24 (g))

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.24(g).


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25433-25434]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10261]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF13-5-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 24, 2013, the Secretary of the Department
of Energy submitted its Rate Order No. WAPA-160 concerning extension of
Washoe Project, Stampede Division, Non-Firm Power Formula Rate for
confirmation and approval on a final basis, effective August 1, 2013,
and ending September 30, 2017.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 24, 2013.

    Dated: April 25, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10261 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P