NMED Direct Response to Comments
Ten Drum Overpack Storage Volume
and
Container Description Consolidation Permit Modification
April 27, 2001

Comment Number	Commentor/ Affiliation	Topic Area	Commentor Number	Comment Summary	Response	Include in Permit? y/n	Reviewer (initials)
2	Robert Kehrman, Westinghouse TRU Solutions	Drum Age Criteria Permit Modification Request and Ten Drum Overpack	B	The Commentor provided revised pages reflecting changes to the permit for the Ten Drum Overpack and Drum Age Criteria modifications on behalf of DOE. The changes update the B6 checklist revisions, presenting the changes in the six part rather than 10 part format.	The response is satisfactory in that the revisions must be presented in the six part rather than ten part B6 checklist format. However, NMED has denied the TDOP request revisions (see comment 3).
3	Don Hancock, Southwest Research and Information Center	Ten Drum Overpack	C	The Commentor believes that because the Permittees did not properly notice the Class 1 permit modification allowing direct loading to TDOPs and because the it is questionable whether the change would be considered Class 1 in nature, this Class 1 should not be in effect. Also, the TDOP should be considered a Class 3 rather than Class 2 modification because of the dramatic increase in storage capacity. Additionally, the Commentor objected to the increase in storage capacity to show that the 160 cubic ft capacity is reasonable and the TDOP is designed to handled double the intended weight.	NMED agrees that the supporting Class 1 permit modification allowing direct loading to TDOPs was inappropriate as a Class 1 permit modification. As such, because the Class 2 permit modification is predicated on an improper Class 1 request, the Class 2 request has been denied. NMED notes that the basis for determining the class of a modification which increases storage capacity is based upon an increase of the total facility capacity, not the capacity of individual containers as the commentor suggested.
4.1	Don Hancock, Southwest Research and Information Center	Ten Drum Overpack	C	The Commentor believes that the class 2 modification for the 10 drum overpack must be denied because the modification request is incomplete, the modification does not comply with other regulations covering the operating standards for hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities, and the conditions of the modification fail to protect human health and the environment.	See response to comment no. 3
5.1	Matthew Silva/ EEG	Ten Drum Overpack	D	The Commentor believes that the request combines two separate and unconnected modifications -- increased storage capacity in the WHB and consolidation of container descriptions -- into the same item. The Commentor points out that the downside of this approach is that rejection of one aspect spells rejection of the other, and the Commentor further points out that the Class 2 process makes this approach problematic.	NMED agrees that the TDOP requests lead to many questions pertaining to the appropriateness of permit modification classification, and the approach used by the Permittees to achieve TDOP approval was problematic. See response to comment 3.
5.2	Matthew Silva/ EEG	Ten Drum Overpack	D	The Commentor believes that the portion of the modification request dealing with expansion of the storage capacity is reasonable.	NMED agrees that the request to expand the storage area is not necessarily unreasonable, but the request failed to consider the need to increase storage capacity in the Parking Area Unit at the same time for the same reason (i.e., direct loading of TDOPs). Other Commentors believe that the associated increased storage capacity for direct TDOP loading was not appropriately public noticed, and therefore this Class 2 permit modification, which is dependant on allowance of TDOP direct loading, should not be granted. See response to comment 3.
5.3	Matthew Silva/ EEG	Ten Drum Overpack	D	The Commentor points out that the container-related modifications made in previous (i.e., July, 2000) Class 1 permit modification requests cannot be considered administrative and informational changes and exceed the boundaries of what should be considered a Class 1 permit modification.	NMED agrees with this analysis. See response to comment 3.
5.4	Matthew Silva/ EEG	Ten Drum Overpack	D	The Commentor points out that the Permittees did not request changes to all necessary portions of the permit (i.e., Module IV,) with respect to container descriptions. The expressed intent of the modification request-- to consolidate container descriptions-- has not been met by the alterations.	NMED concurs with this analysis.
5.5	Matthew Silva/ EEG	Ten Drum Overpack	D	The Commentor states that changes to the HWFP should be placed in the proper locations, as there are incorrect citations in the permit modification request.	NMED agrees with the observations made by the Commentor.
7	Marina Day, citizen	Drum Age Criteria Permit Modification Request and Ten Drum Overpack	E	The Commentor believed that the storage capacity increase should be considered a Class 3 permit modification request.	See response to Comment 3.
8.1	Penelope McMullen, Loretto Community of Sisters and Comembers	Ten Drum Overpack	F	The Commentor opposes surface storage of any waste, stating that the TRUPACTs should be unloaded in rooms with air locks. The Commentor does not oppose consolidation of container descriptions.	Allowable surface storage areas are presented in Module III of the permit, which specifies four allowable locations in the WHB storage unit. See response to comment 3.
9	Lindsay Lovejoy, NMAGO	Ten Drum Overpack	G	The Commentor points out that the multiple permit modification requests confuse the issue of storage volume increases, making it unclear what the ultimate increase in storage size would be. An increase in container storage capacity in excess of 25% requires a Class 3 modification. The Commentor concludes that the TDOP proposal should be denied and all proposals for capacity increases be consolidated with the Centralized Confirmation Facility proposal and be considered under Class 3 procedures.	NMED concurs that the multiple permit modification requests confuses the actual storage capacity increases, imparting through incremental "small" changes an overall larger change. However, the overall change in capacity does not appear to exceed 25%. See response to comment 3.
11.29	Inés Triay, DOE	Ten Drum Overpack	H	Response to EEG Comment No. 1: Comment 5.1.	See response to comment 5.1
11.30	Inés Triay, DOE	Ten Drum Overpack	H	Response to EEG Comment No. 2, Comment 5.2. No response necessary.	See response to comment 5.2
11.31	Inés Triay, DOE	Ten Drum Overpack	H	Response to EEG Comment No. 3, Comment 5.3. The Permittees indicate that the placement of filters on TDOPs (cited by the EEG as an example of an inappropriate Class 1 permit modification request) were requested to cover the possibility that such configurations may be acceptable. The Permittees also states that the requirements that the filters work and that the container meet applicable transportation requirements have not changed.	The Permittees' response does not address the issue raised by EEG that inappropriate Class 1 permit modification requests were made. See response to Comment 5.3.
11.32	Inés Triay, DOE	Ten Drum Overpack	H	Response to EEG Comment No. 4, Comment 5.4. The Permittees requested a modification to address EEG's concerns about Module IV.	See response to comment 5.4.
11.33	Inés Triay, DOE	Ten Drum Overpack	H	Response to EEG Comment No. 5, Comment 5.5. The Permittees	See Response to comment 5.5
12.1	Joni Arends/ CCNS	Ten Drum Overpack	I	The Commentor believes that the TDOP permit modification request should be denied. The request was incomplete, as the copy CCNS downloaded from the Internet prior to the June 7, 2001 public meeting is different from the redline copy sent after the meeting, specifically with respect to Acceptable Disposal Containers. In addition, the container volumes are not consistent within the Permit.	See response to comment 3.
13.1	Deborah Reade, CARD	Ten Drum Overpack	J	The Commentor believes that the TDOP Class 2 permit modification request should be denied because more than one version of the request was submitted.	See response to comment 3.