Title 40 CFR Part 191
Subparts B and C
Compliance Recertification Application 2014

for the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Monitoring
(40 CFR § 194.42)

United States Department of Energy
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Carlsbad Field Office
Carlsbad, New Mexico


Compliance Recertification Application 2014

Monitoring
(40 CFR § 194.42)


Table of Contents

42.0 Monitoring (40 CFR § 194.42)

42.1 Requirements

42.2 Background

42.3 1998 Certification Decision

42.4 Changes in the CRA-2004

42.5 EPA's Evaluation of Compliance for the 2004 Recertification

42.6 Changes or New Information Between the CRA-2004 and the CRA-2009 (Previously: Changes or New Information Since the 2004 Recertification)

42.7 EPA's Evaluation of Compliance for the 2009 Recertification

42.8 Changes or New Information Since the CRA-2009

42.9 References


This page intentionally left blank.


Acronyms and Abbreviations

CARD Compliance Application Review Document

CCA Compliance Certification Application

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMP Compliance Monitoring Program

COMP Compliance Monitoring Parameter

CRA Compliance Recertification Application

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

PA performance assessment

PABC Performance Assessment Baseline Calculation

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant


This page intentionally left blank.


§ 194.42 Monitoring

(a) The Department shall conduct an analysis of the effects of disposal system parameters on the containment of waste in the disposal system and shall include the results of such analysis in any compliance application. The results of the analysis shall be used in developing plans for pre-closure and post-closure monitoring required pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. The disposal system parameters analyzed shall include, at a minimum:

1. Properties of backfilled material, including porosity, permeability, and degree of compaction and reconsolidation;

2. Stresses and extent of deformation of the surrounding roof, walls, and floor of the waste disposal room;

3. Initiation or displacement of major brittle deformation features in the roof or surrounding rock;

4. Ground water flow and other effects of human intrusion in the vicinity of the disposal system;

5. Brine quantity, flux, composition, and spatial distribution;

6. Gas quantity and composition; and

7. Temperature distribution.

(b) For all disposal system parameters analyzed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, any compliance application shall document and substantiate the decision not to monitor a particular disposal system parameter because that parameter is considered to be insignificant to the containment of waste in the disposal system or to the verification of predictions about the future performance of the disposal system.

(c) Pre-closure monitoring. To the extent practicable, pre-closure monitoring shall be conducted of significant disposal system parameter(s) as identified by the analysis conducted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. A disposal system parameter shall be considered significant if it affects the system's ability to contain waste or the ability to verify predictions about the future performance of the disposal system. Such monitoring shall begin as soon as practicable; however, in no case shall waste be emplaced in the disposal system prior to the implementation of pre-closure monitoring. Pre-closure monitoring shall end at the time at which the shafts of the disposal system are backfilled and sealed.

(d) Post-closure monitoring. The disposal system shall, to the extent practicable, be monitored as soon as practicable after the shafts of the disposal system are backfilled and sealed to detect substantial and detrimental deviations from expected performance and shall end when the Department can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that there are no significant concerns to be addressed by further monitoring. Post-closure monitoring shall be complementary to monitoring required pursuant to applicable federal hazardous waste regulations at parts 264, 265, 268, and 270 of this chapter and shall be conducted with techniques that do not jeopardize the containment of waste in the disposal system.

(e) Any compliance application shall include detailed pre-closure and post-closure monitoring plans for monitoring the performance of the disposal system. At a minimum, such plans shall:

(1) Identify the parameters that will be monitored and how baseline values will be determined;

(2) Indicate how each parameter will be used to evaluate any deviations from the expected performance of the disposal system; and

(3) Discuss the length of time over which each parameter will be monitored to detect deviations from expected performance.

In 40 CFR §194.42 (U.S. EPA 1996), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides criteria to demonstrate compliance with the assurance requirement at 40 CFR §191.14(b) (U.S. EPA 1993) to monitor the disposal system. The purpose of this monitoring is "to detect substantial and detrimental deviations from expected performance," with the expected performance predicted by performance assessment (PA). The criteria also require both a preclosure and postclosure monitoring program using techniques that do not jeopardize the containment of waste in the disposal system. Ten monitoring parameters were identified in an analysis performed to fulfill the section 194.42 requirement during the original certification process. More detailed information describing the section 194.42 Compliance Monitoring Program (CMP) is located in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Compliance Monitoring Implementation Plan (U.S. DOE 2005); the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (CRA-2004) (U.S. DOE 2004), Chapter 7.0, Section 7.2; Appendix MON-2009 (U.S. DOE 2009); and Appendix Mon-2014.

The 10 parameters, their associated monitoring programs, the frequency of data collection and reporting, related PA parameters, and related screening decisions used to support the PA are listed in Appendix MON-2014, Table MON-1. These parameters are periodically evaluated to determine if there is an impact on the PA-related parameters, conceptual models, or features, events, and processes screening decisions (Wagner and Kuhlman 2010b; Wagner 2011; Wagner, Kuhlman, and Johnson 2012; Wagner 2013).

Based on information in the Compliance Certification Application (CCA) (U.S. DOE 1996) and supplemental monitoring-related information for the CCA submitted to the EPA in response to its request for additional information regarding the methodology of the MONPAR analysis, the EPA determined that the DOE was in compliance with the criteria of section 194.42 (U.S. EPA 1998a, Section VIII.D.2 , Monitoring). Additional details of the EPA's evaluation of compliance can be found in the Compliance Application Review Document (CARD) 42, Monitoring (U.S. EPA 1998b).

Since 1998, the DOE has monitored and evaluated the 10 monitoring parameters listed in Appendix MON-2004, Table MON-1. For the CRA-2004, the DOE reassessed the CCA monitoring parameter analysis in light of changes in the monitoring program. This reassessment is documented in Kirkes and Wagner (Kirkes and Wagner 2003), and described in the CRA-2004, Chapter 7.0, Section 7.2. It was determined that the CCA, Appendix MON, Attachment MONPAR monitoring parameter analysis performed to comply with section 194.42 requirements was adequate and did not need to be redone for the CRA-2004. The 10 monitoring parameters identified in the CCA were still sufficient to be included in the Compliance Monitoring Program (CMP) to detect substantial deviations from performance expectations and to comply with the requirements of section 194.42. Supplemental information was submitted to the EPA in response to its request for compliance monitoring annual reports and monitoring data references (Response C-42-1 through C-42-4 [Detwiler 2004a]; Response C-42-5 and C-42-6 [Detwiler 2004b]). Since the CCA, the DOE found four monitoring parameters that either did not fall within the set trigger values or indicated a change from values used in the CCA. These parameters include:

· Changes in the Culebra Dolomite Member of the Rustler Formation (hereafter referred to as Culebra) water level that may impact Culebra groundwater flow direction and/or composition

· A change in the probability of encountering a Castile brine reservoir

· A change in the drilling rate because of continued oil and gas drilling in the Delaware Basin

· Changes in the waste activity caused by changes in the waste inventory

The impacts of these changes were considered in Appendix PA-2004 and the EPA-mandated CRA-2004 Performance Assessment Baseline Calculation (PABC) to assess their impact on compliance (see CARD 23, Models and Computer Codes [U.S. EPA 2006a]), which documented the EPA's review of these impacts and its determination of continued compliance with the disposal standards.

In CARD 42, the EPA stated that through its annual monitoring and waste emplacement inspections it had determined that the DOE meets the requirements of section 194.42 (U.S. EPA 2006b). The results of these inspections are documented in CARD 21, Tables CARD 21-1 and 21-2 (U.S. EPA 2006c).

The CMP outlined in Section 42.2 was developed to implement the requirements of section 194.42; the program continued to monitor the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) disposal system to detect substantial and detrimental deviations from expected performance. During this time, the program did not indicate such a condition. No changes were made to this program from that described in the CRA-2004, Chapter 7.0, Section 7.2, and Attachment MON-2004. New information that supplemented the information in the CRA-2004, Chapter 7.0, Section 7.2 included the following:

1. Results of the CMP since 2004 (Appendix DATA-2009) (U.S. DOE 2009)

2. Assessment of the impact of changes on the CMP (Wagner 2008)

The annual Compliance Monitoring Parameters (COMPs) report presented monitoring results and determined whether the results were within PA expectations, whether they impacted the assumptions or parameters used in PA, or whether they impacted the monitoring program. A review of the conclusions in the last four annual COMPs reports (Wagner 2008) showed the following:

· The results of the COMPs assessments concluded that there were no reportable conditions or events.

· Water levels in the Culebra continued to rise across the monitored region. The DOE continued its investigation of those events. Those investigations led to the inclusion of updated water-level information during the CRA-2004 PABC (see preface to Appendix TFIELD-2009). The CRA-2009 PA (U.S. DOE 2009) used the CRA-2004 PABC transmissivity fields.

· The CMP investigated sample collection and analytical laboratory techniques to reduce uncertainties in water chemistry results.

· No changes to the COMPs or CMP were recommended.

The results of the COMPs reports validated the need to monitor groundwater and demonstrated the importance of continued monitoring and the need to incorporate results into the PA (Sandia National Laboratories 2004).

The CCA, Appendix MON, Attachment MONPAR documented an analysis that was used to determine which monitoring parameters should be included in the CMP. A reassessment of this analysis, documented in Wagner (Wagner 2008), determined whether changes to elements of the WIPP program since the last certification affect the conclusions in the CCA, Appendix MON, Attachment MONPAR analysis. The reassessment first determined which changes should be considered, and then determined the impact of those changes on the conclusions drawn in the CCA, Appendix MON, Attachment MONPAR analysis. Changes to the following disposal system elements were evaluated:

1. Monitoring results

2. Experimental activities

3. PA changes: methodology, parameters, and implementation

4. WIPP operational changes

5. Proposed changes to activities and conditions approved by the EPA

Based on the review of operational activities, conditions, monitoring data, the PA, and experimental programs that occurred since the CRA-2004, the reassessment concluded, "the conclusions of the MONPAR analysis remain valid and its conclusions continue to be adequate for inclusion in the CRA-2009" (Wagner 2008).

The DOE believed the information presented in the CRA-2004, Chapter 7.0, Section 7.2; Appendix MON-2004; Appendix MON-2009; and the supplemental information provided in this section continued to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of section 194.42.

In the CRA-2009 CARD 42, the EPA outlined its review of information in the CRA-2009, supplemental information provided by the DOE and the results of the EPA's annual inspections of the WIPP, and determined that the DOE continued to comply with the requirements of section 194.42 (U.S. EPA 2010a and U.S. EPA 2010b).

The CMP in Section 42.2 implements the requirements of section 194.42, and the program continues to monitor the WIPP to detect substantial and detrimental deviations from expected performance. This program has not indicated such a condition. The DOE has continued to monitor and evaluate the 10 monitoring parameters. Minor changes have been made to the monitoring program from that described in the CRA-2009 or Appendix MON-2009 (U.S. DOE 2009). The DOE did not change its pre-closure or post-closure program plans or activities, so there are no changes to report for the requirements of 40 CFR 194.42(b), (c), (d), or (e). Due to a revision to the WIPP groundwater conceptual model during the CRA-2009 PABC, changes were needed to the related Culebra groundwater monitoring parameter derivation and trigger values. Other changes were made to parameter trigger values as part of the trigger value report revision (Wagner and Kuhlman 2010a).

Changes were also made to the Culebra Groundwater Monitoring Program regarding groundwater composition sampling frequency and the method for reporting the change in the groundwater flow parameter (Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC 2012). The DOE has changed from semi-annual sampling to an annual sampling schedule, based on 15 years of data showing little or no change in constituent concentrations. DOE also changed the method used to produce the annual water level map required by the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (Permit). These changes to the Groundwater Monitoring Program Plan (Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC 2012) were necessary to align the 40 CFR 194.42 compliance monitoring program with related changes made to respond to a New Mexico Environment Department Class 2 Permit Modification request to revise the WIPP Groundwater Detection Monitoring Program Plan. This permit modification was approved January 31, 2012 (NMED 2012).

Minor changes to the 40 CFR 194.42 monitoring program have occurred over the last five-year recertification cycle. The trigger values for some of the monitoring parameters have been revised; however, no changes were made to the 10 monitoring parameters (Wagner and Kuhlman 2010a; Wagner, Kuhlman and Johnson 2012). Changes were made to the process used to derive the Change in Culebra Groundwater Flow parameter and the sampling frequency has changed from biannually to annually for the Change in Groundwater Composition parameter (Wagner and Kuhlman 2010b, Section 2.3.2.2 ). The results of the CMP over this period have not identified any substantial and detrimental deviations from expected performance.

New monitoring information that supplements the information provided since the last recertification cycle includes the following:

1. Monitoring results for the 10 parameters since 2009 are contained in Appendix DATA-2014

2. Information included in the Trigger Value Derivation Report revision (Wagner and Kuhlman 2010a)

3. The reassessment of the parameters to determine if there is an impact on the PA-related parameters, conceptual models, or features, events, and processes screening decisions (Wagner 2013)

4. Changes to Change in Culebra Composition, and Change in Culebra Groundwater Flow parameters to align with the Permit (NMED 2012; Wagner and Kuhlman 2010b)

The DOE believes the information presented in this section, along with Appendix MON-2014 and Appendix DATA-2014, continues to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of section 194.42.

(*Indicates a reference that has not been previously submitted.)

Detwiler, R.P. 2004a. Letter to E. Cotsworth (Subject: Partial Response to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) May 20, 2004, Letter on CRA; 4 Enclosures). 15 July 2004. U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, NM. [PDF / Author]

Detwiler, R.P. 2004b. Letter to E. Cotsworth (Subject: Initial Response to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) September 2, 2004, Letter on Compliance Recertification Application; 6 Enclosures). 1 November 2004. U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, NM. [PDF / Author]

Kirkes, R., and S.W. Wagner. 2003. MONPAR Reassessment. ERMS 533098. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. [PDF / Author]

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). 2012. Letter to E. Ziemianski, and F. Sharif, (Subject: Approval and partial denial of permit modification requests to update ventilation language, add a shielded container, and revise the WIPP Groundwater Detection Monitoring Program Plan, WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, EPA I.D. Number NM4890139088-TSDF). 31, January 2012, New Mexico Environment Department, Santa Fe, NM [PDF / Author]

Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC. 2012. WIPP Groundwater Monitoring Program Plan (Rev. 12, November 30, 2012). WP 02-1. Carlsbad, NM: Carlsbad Field Office. [PDF / Author]

Sandia National Laboratories. 2004. Sandia National Laboratories Annual Compliance Monitoring Parameter Assessment for 2003 (Revision 1, June). ERMS 535825. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. [PDF / Author]

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1996. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Compliance Certification Application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (October). 21 vols. DOE/CAO 1996-2184. Carlsbad, NM: Carlsbad Area Office. [Author]

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Compliance Recertification Application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (March). 10 vols. DOE/WIPP 2004-3231. Carlsbad, NM: Carlsbad Field Office. [Author]

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. 40 CFR Parts 191 and 194 Compliance Monitoring Implementation Plan (April 06, 2005, Revision 4). DOE/WIPP 99-3119. Carlsbad, NM: Carlsbad Field Office. [PDF / Author]

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Compliance Recertification Application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (March). DOE/WIPP-09-3424. Carlsbad, NM: Carlsbad Field Office.* [Author]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. "40 CFR Part 191: Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes; Final Rule." Federal Register, vol. 58 (December 20, 1993): 66398-416. [PDF /Author]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. "40 CFR Part 194: Criteria for the Certification and Re-Certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations; Final Rule." Federal Register, vol. 61 (February 9, 1996): 5223-45. [PDF /Author]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998a. "40 CFR Part 194: Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the Disposal Regulations: Certification Decision; Final Rule." Federal Register, vol. 63 (May 18, 1998): 27353-406. [PDF /Author]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998b. "CARD No. 42: Monitoring." Compliance Application Review Documents for the Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the 40 CFR 191 Disposal Regulations: Final Certification Decision (May) (pp. 42-1 through 42-24). Washington, DC: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. [PDF / Author]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006a. "Recertification CARD No. 23: Models and Computer Codes." Compliance Application Review Documents for the Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the 40 CFR 191 Disposal Regulations: Final Recertification Decision (March) (pp. 23-1 through 23-37). Washington, DC: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. [PDF / Author]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006b. "Recertification CARD No. 42: Monitoring." Compliance Application Review Documents for the Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the 40 CFR 191 Disposal Regulations: Final Recertification Decision (March) (pp. 42-1 through 42-6). Washington, DC: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. [PDF / Author]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006c. "Recertification CARD No. 21: Inspections." Compliance Application Review Documents for the Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the 40 CFR 191 Disposal Regulations: Final Recertification Decision (March) (pp. 21-1 through 21-5). Washington, DC: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. [PDF / Author]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. "Recertification CARD No. 42: Monitoring." 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (2009 CRA) Compliance Application Review Document (CARD) No. 42; Monitoring (November 18, 2010). Washington, DC: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.* [PDF / Author]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. "Recertification CARD No. 21: Monitoring." 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (2009 CRA) Compliance Application Review Document (CARD) No. 21; Inspections (November 18, 2010). Washington, DC: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.* [PDF / Author]

Wagner, S.W. 2008. Reassessment of MONPAR Analysis for Use in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application. ERMS 548948. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.* [PDF / Author]

Wagner, S.W. 2011. Compliance Monitoring Parameter Assessment, and Recommendations. ERMS 554957. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.* [PDF / Author]

Wagner, S.W., and K.L. Kuhlman. 2010a. Trigger Value Derivation Report, Revision 2. ERMS 554605. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.* [PDF / Author]

Wagner, S.W., and K.L. Kuhlman. 2010b. Compliance Monitoring Parameter Assessment for 2010. ERMS 554585. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.* [PDF / Author]

Wagner, S.W., Kuhlman K.L., and P.B. Johnson. 2012. Compliance Monitoring Parameter Assessment for 2012. Revision 1. ERMS 558589. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.* [PDF / Author]

Wagner, S.W. 2013. Reassessment of MONPAR Analysis for Use in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application. ERMS 560164. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.* [PDF /Author]