INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: WCS Uranium Disposal File (New Application)
THRU: Ruth E. McBurney, CHP, Director, Licensing, Registration and Standards
THRU: Gary Smith, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Technical Assessments
FROM: Chuck McLendon, PE, CIH Engineer
CC: List of TDH Personnel Attending Meeting (see below)
DATE: April 7, 1998
SUBJECT: Meeting Notes, TDH-WCS meeting held on April 7,1998

TDH and WCS (Waste Control Specialists, LLC) Meeting
Compiled by Chuck McLendon, PE, CIH


WCS requested a meeting with TDH Bureau of Radiation Control personnel. The meeting convened at 10:10 a.m., on Tuesday, April 7, 1998. Attending this meeting included:

Texas Department of Health
Ruth E. McBurney, CHP, Director, Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards
Phil Shaver, Chief, Special Licensing Projects, Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards
Charles R. Meyer, CHP, Chief Environmental Surveillance and Uranium Project, Division of Compliance and Inspection
Bruce Calder, Geologist, Technical Assessments Branch, Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards
Chuck McLendon, PE, CIH, Engineer, Technical Assessments Branch, Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards
George Gonzalez, PE, Engineer, Technical Assessments Branch, Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards
Gene Forrer, Chief, Uranium Project, Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards

Waste Control Specialists, LLC
William Dornsife, VP - Nuclear Affairs, WCS
Allan Messenger, PE, AM Environmental
Andy Wittfield, Scientist/ Engineer, AM Environmental
David Allen, Scientist/ Engineer, AM Environmental


WCS personnel indicated that they would like a byproduct disposal license and related a number of objectives for this meeting. WCS reports that they are making plans for a landfill to dispose of 11(e)(2) materials, and are particularly interested in getting authorization and being a prime contractor to dispose of DOE waste. The WCS objectives discussed included the introducing and explaining of their concept of a new radioactive waste disposal unit in Andrews County, TX, the seeking of guidance from TDH, and ensuring that they "are on the same page" as TDH personnel in reference to the licensing process and requirements for licensing. Mr. Messenger mentioned that WCS has submitted an extensive "license application" to DOE for review and are awaiting comments from DOE.

Ruth E. McBurney reminded WCS that byproduct wastes generated prior to 1978 may not necessarily be categorized as 11(e)(2), but instead may be classified as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) waste. In such case, TNRCC would have jurisdiction (TDH does not). Ruth E. McBurney suggested that TNRCC could license a separate cell. A conclusion was that the WCS, if required, would not commingle by-product and NORM materials.

WCS has property in Andrews County comprising approximately 16,000 acres, of which 14,000 acres are in TX and 1,500 acres are in NM. WCS has an existing NORM* cell (authorized by EPA and permitted by TNRCC) with a capacity of 637,000 cubic yards for disposal of hazardous waste, including PCBs. [* ED: POSTSCRIPT strikeout signed by Ruth E. McBurney with note: "They have been authorized to take NORM waste that has been exempted from regulation."]

The WCS website was reported to be at http://www.wcstexas.com. Texas Tech also has some information on WCS's operation in their website.

Mr. Messenger asked what regulations would apply to them in this venture. Ruth E. McBurney indicated that pretty much all of Section 289.260 would apply, except where the language states that it is meant for in-situ mining or where the language states it does not apply to a waste disposal facility.

Mr. Messenger stated that the TDH Rules are indicative of a synthetic liner. He indicated his personal preference for a composite liner. Mr. Messenger suggested the use of a composite liner (i.e., compacted Dockum clay with an FML) and a leachate collection system. He asked if they could submit plans, for TDH consideration, with documentation to request a composite liner. There was general agreement on this submittal question.

Mr. Messenger indicated that the site fill area was currently planned for 40-50 acres, located north and upgradient from their hazwaste landfill, and within the facility boundary. The disposal cell may have a depth of 30-50 feet.

Mr. Messenger said that they anticipate receiving delivered wastes in bulk and in barrels. These wastes would be disposed of in the proposed disposal area.

Mr. Messenger brings up the "uppermost aquifer issue" which he said is an important one for them. Allen Messenger offered his interpretation of the subsurface:

Eocene aeolian sands on surface
-----------------------------------
caliche material
-----------------------------------
thin layers of Antler Fm. sandstone
-----------------------------------
Triassic redbeds of the Dockam Group
-----------------------------------
Santa Rosa (the "uppermost aquifer")

Mr. Messenger maintains that the Ogallala formation is not present at the site. Instead, he asserts the Antlers Formation is present. Historically, the Texas Water Development Board Publication (or TDWR?) No. 288 indicated the Ogallala as present over the site area; however, WCS has been in consultation with several geology professors from Texas Tech (Tom Lehman, Mr. Rainwater, and Roy Urban) and they have determined that the Ogallala is not present at this site. Mr. Messenger asserts that the "uppermost aquifer," i.e., the aquifer required by the rules for groundwater monitoring, is the Santa Rosa. He reports that since the Santa Rosa is several hundred feet below the Dockum, the EPA and the TNRCC have authorized WCS to monitor a dry, silty zone within the Dockom layer. Mr. Messenger mentioned that some of the WCS documentation does refer to the Ogallala formation at this Andrews County site

Mr. Messenger went on to explain that the existence of the near-surface Dockum Group member was the main reason for siting the facility where it is. He stated that this geologic member can be used for liner and cover material and has low hydraulic conductivity (k = 10-8 to 10-9 cm/sec). After recompaction, the Dockum has a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 10-7 cm/sec.

Mr. Messenger reported that the landfill is to be constructed by excavating the shallow materials on the surface and reworking the Dockum materials into 2:1 side slopes. He said they utilize the Universal Soil Loss Equation to estimate cap erosion.

Charles "Russ" Meyer inquired about the current status of a background survey for radioactive nuclides and other nonradioactive constituents. Mr. Meyer stressed that if WCS has already included the K-series nuclides, in their background surveying, that they do not have to do it again. Ruth E. McBurney indicated that a year-long baseline preoperational monitoring program is required. This survey needs to include baseline data on the site and its environs. Reference: Section 289.260(q)(28).

Mr. Messenger asked about the lead time for processing an application for a byproduct disposaI project. Ruth E. McBurney referred to the rule that indicates a 180-day time period. This 180- day time period is from the receipt date to the date of issuance or denial of the license or a written notice outlining why the application is incomplete or unacceptable.

It is anticipated that a "rail off loading facility" would be at the proposed disposal area. The proposed disposal site is approximately 30 mi NNW of Andrews, TX.

A discussion of the definitions of 11(e)(2) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) material ensued. E.G., by definition if a material is classified as 11(e)(2), it is not RCRA material. Mr. Messenger mentioned that Cogema Mining, Inc. may become a teaming partner on this 11(e)(2) project with WCS. He also said under RCRA, they have special designations for some materials, like leachate. The question was posed by WCS as to what should be done with collected leachate. WCS inquired about the possibility of using the leachate for irrigating the vegetative cover. No final decision was rendered on this question.

Mr. Shavers suggests that benefit may be derived from a review of the original design information in the Texcor license submittal. This Texcor application related to a proposed byproduct disposal project.

Mr. Messenger indicates that a site geology report submitted to the EPA was said to be the best report that EPA had ever received. Concerning groundwater in the area, Mr. Messenger says there are no potable water-bearing strata of concern in the proposed site area. Potable water is piped into the area from the northeast corner of the county. At this site, they use water brought in from New Mexico. Windmill wells in the area are completed in a discontinuous (as indicated by the many dry windmill wells) sand of the Antlers Formation.

WCS personnel described a potential disposal site in New Mexico. WCS reports that New Mexico basically does not regulate NORM and this could result in business opportunities for WCS.

For TDH planning purposes, the application for this site can be expected in about four months, or longer. The AM Environmental consulting group would like to contact and meet with TDH Technical Assessments Branch personnel in a few weeks to go over some technical aspects of this proposed facility. TDH personnel welcomed the prospect of another meeting.

WCS made mention of their plaintiff involvement in two recent lawsuits: one between WCS and Envirocare, and another between WCS and DOE.

Mr. Dornsife produced two faxed letters from the U.S. Army/ Corps of Engineers to NRC regarding WCS using the best available technology, or BAT.

Mr. Messenger requested information on an above-grade design for this project. Mr. Dornsife said they would be planning another meeting with TDH personnel.