WSC Site EA Review and Final Report
TNRCC - May 22, 1997
By Vicky Batson and Karen Cleveland, PE; (TNRCC)

PURPOSE: By contractual agreement between the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) and the Texas Department of Health Bureau of Radiation Control (TDH), Vicky Batson, TNRCC Staff Geologist and Karen Cleveland, TNRCC Staff Engineer (hydrologist), were to review an Environmental Analysis (EA) submitted by Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) as part of a license application submitted to TDH for a Class C Radioactive Processing and Storage Facility. The EA was to be evaluated based on applicable sections, outlined by TDH, of the Texas Radiation Control Act and Part 44 of the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation (TRCR).

Specifically, the contract requires that a qualified geologist and/or hydrologist review the WSC (ED: sic) EA according to the applicable requirements of Sections 401.112-401.113 of the Texas Radiation Control Act and Part 44 of the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation. Site suitability will be based on geological and hydrological factors. In particular, TNRCC will evaluate the EA to determine whether the following topics were suitably addressed by TDH through the EA. The EA was reviewed according to designated sections of Part 44 TRCR, and Sections 401.112 and 401.113 of the Texas Radiation Control Act. The specific tasks of the contract between TDH and TNRCC relating to the hydrological and geological conditions are discussed in further detail below.

SPECIFIC TASKS: Under this agreement TNRCC professionals would focus on specific tasks as elaborated below:

TASK 1 & 2: TNRCC geologist will review and evaluate the adequacy of the geological description of the site, the description of ground water and surface water, possible impacts thereto, any impacts of potential spills during decommissioning, and that the site does not present an unacceptable risk to a sole source aquifer. TNRCC should consult TRCR 44.20(k), 44.50(b), and 44.80(a,b,c), and Sections 401.112 and 401.113 of the Texas Radiation Control Act.

EVALUATION: The geologic description contained in the EA and fiarther referenced by the WCS TNRCC Hazardous Waste Permit Application was found to be consistent with published data on the geology of Andrews County with the following exceptions discussed with Mr. Wes Dunn, a TDH Health Physicist and the Project Leader, for inclusion in an anticipated notice of deficiency to the company.

A report by Dr. Tom Lehman in the application states that the Ogallala Formation is not present at the site. Dr. Lehman's interpretation is that the permeable sediments identified as Ogallala Formation in published reports, and present at the site, are in reality Antler's Sandstone. In another report submitted by WCS by Dr. Kenneth Rainwater, a liberal interpretation of the definition of an aquifer was used. It is recommended that the EPA definition of an aquifer found in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 260.10) be applied here as more representative. The EPA definition states that an aquifer is, "a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation capable of yielding a significant amount of ground water to wells or springs". The EPA definition does not exclude the unsaturated parts of a geologic formation which have been identified as an aquifer. The application EA shows four producing wells located 1-2 miles from the WCS site. Information submitted suggests that these wells are producing from the Ogallala Formation at approximately 100 feet below ground surface; this was verified by the TNRCC staff to be correct based on well log information submutted to TNRCC. The majority of groundwater for drinking purposes in the region is obtained from a deeper aquifer, the Santa Rosa Formation, according to the EA. Whether or not the Ogallala Formation is present at this site is irrelevant since permeable sediments have been identified that could act as migration pathways for spilled materials.

Buffalo Wallows (playas) were stated to be present at the site. Saturated conditions were encountered in soil borings below at least one of these features. Buffalo Wallows are topographic depressions that can act as recharge features, and are areas in which natural drainage tends to migrate. There are also inconsistencies in the EA concerning surface drainage. Several references are made to the lack of surface drainage features, although other references are made to the natural drainage present at the site. Undulating topography was noted at the site dunug the site visit on May 7th. Local site drainage systems should be delineated to assess the potential for spill migration through shallow permeable sediments identified at the site as required by the Texas Radiation Control Act Sections 401.112-113, and TRCR Sections 44.50(b) and 44.80(a).

Based on submitted information, shallow permeable sediments present at the site whether Ogallala sediments or not, do not appear to be saturated except in localized areas. It was not possible to make a final determination that the overall hydrological environment of the site, in combination with engineering design, shall act to minimize and control potential radioactive waste migration into surface and ground waters as required by the Texas Radiation Control Act. Section 401.113(2), TRCR 44.50(b), and TRCR 44.80(a), because of the applicant's incomplete delineation of shallow permeable sediments at the site as requested in our March 28,1997 letter to TDH. It was our understanding the need for this information was mitigated by Mr. Dunn receiving new information to his satisfaction from WCS wherein they addressed engineering controls to contain and remediate spills.

TNRCC staff have not reviewed this new information that the engineered barriers (i.e., secondary containment, barriers and roads) are sufficient controls to prevent soil and subsequent surface water contamination. Nor has TNRCC addressed that the barners to potential ground water contamination have been maximized.

The site groundwater monitoring program was not submitted to TNRCC and was to be reviewed by the TDH Project Leader.

The EA adequately discussed that the site is not located within the recharge area of a sole source aquifer or major aquifer. The Ogallala Formation, if present in this area, lacks sufficient usable quantities of water. In this region of Texas the Santa Rosa Formation, which lies beneath the low permeability red beds, is the major source of drinking water.

TASK 3: TNRCC hydrologist will review and evaluate WCS's wetland analysis. TNRCC should consult the applicable portions of TRCR 44.80(a) and 44.80(b). Section 44.80 of the TRCR states, "Site Suitability Criteria. The following requirements specify the characteristics which must have to be acceptable for licensure (a) The overall hydrological environment of the site, in combination with engineering design, shall act to minimize and control potential radioactive waste migration into surface and ground waters (b) No new site shall be located in wetlands.

EVALUATION: Item a) To minimize and control potential radioactive waste migration into surface and ground waters, the applicant addressed spill cleanup in soils and stated it was mitigated by containment structures and hard surfaces adjacent to work areas. After discussions with TDH about the applicants intent to have hard surfaces adjacent to work areas and containtnent barriers within buildings to minimize transport and aid in cleanup of spilled materials, Mr. Dunn, felt this was adequate engineering controls.

Item b) Ms. Karen Cleveland made the determination based on the data submitted that no wetlands are located at the site.

TASK 4: TNRCC will evaluate if WCS suitably addresses if soil conditions do not make spill cleanup impracticable.

Information from the soil survey of Andrews County was submitted. The soil information submitted by WCS is not adequate to demonstrate if spill cleanup can be accomplished, as addressed in our letter of March 28, 1997. The soil information submitted is too general. Information concerning the soil physical and chernical reactions with the expected waste stream were omitted. For example, the rail car area is of particular concern, because of the potential for large scale leaks. It appears from submitted information, that caliche gravel and permeable soil exists in the rail car area. It was recommended to Mr. Dunn in our March 28th letter, 10 additional information be submitted by WCS concaning the soil/gravel chemical and pl~cal properties found in the rail car area in accordance with the Texas Radiation Control Act Section 401.112-113, and TRCR 44.80(a).

The EA states the paved roads present at the facility provide adequate soil protection from spills and will minimize impact to surface/ground water. It appears that this assumption is based on limited or no spill runoff occuring from the paved road surface, and further that no chemical reactions occur between the waste and the paved surface. On March 28th, we addressed to Mr Dunn to seek additional information from the applicant to ensure the soil environment near the road surface is capable of being remediated in the event of a mixed waste spill of sufficient volume that would cause erosion and spread of contanõination in soils as requlred by TRCR 44.80(a).

It was our understanding the need for the above information gaps was mitigated by Mr. Dunn receiving new information to his satisfaction from WCS, wherein they addressed engineering controls to minimize surface/ground water impact from spills. TNRCC never received this information for review and comrnent.

In the waste processing area, radioactive and mixed wastes are expected to be processed in the same storage building as hazzardous waste. According to Mr. Allen Messenger, PE, WCS will construct a new concrete fire wall to physically separate radioactive and mixed wastes per MFPA criteria from the other stored hazardous waste. The facility was constructed to keep solid and liquid waste streams contained and separated in the container storage building and the bin storage areas. After discussions with Mr. Dunn, it was unclear whether an interpretation of the TDH rules would allow radioactive and mixed wastes to be stored or processed in the same building with hazardous waste and only separated by a fire wall. TDH should consider the complications and waste compatibility issues of using common building(s) for hazardous waste, and radioactive and mixed waste storage and treatrnent. Those complications may involve different needs for waste segregation, exits, ventilation, fire walls, and fire suppression systems. Also, in the event of an explosion or other catastrophic event, a possible breach of the proposed concrete fire wall and existing metal storage building walls could potentially allow migration of radioactive, mixed, and other hazardous waste stored at the site to the surrounding soil and surface/ground water environrnents. Thus worsening the situation.

CONCLUSION: Overall the WCS site suitability appears adequate, however that position can not be professionally defended based on the data we have reviewed. On March 28, 1997 the TDH was provided a list of items that the applicant needed to submit in order to fulfill our professional determination in accordance with the TRCR and the Texas Radiation Control Act criteria outlined. Than on May 8th, we were informed TDH had received new information from the applicant that mitigated our need for the requested information. Following the site visit and in order to comply with the TDH contract, TNRCC management directed this report be finalized with the information known and to clarify who was responsible for making which determination of adequacy.