texas commission on environmental quality - TCEQ e-Services

Kathleen Hartnett White, Chairman 

R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner 

Larry R. Soward, Commissioner 

Glenn Shankle, Executive Director 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution 

January 30, 2006 

Mr. Dean Kunihiro 

Senior Vice President 

Licensing and Regulatory Affairs 

Waste Control Specialists LLC 

5430 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1700 

Three Lincoln Centre 

Dallas, Texas 75240 

7003 0500 0003 1982 2035 

CERTIFIED MAlL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Re: 

Second Teclmical Notice of Deficiency 

Radioactive Material License, Andrews County 

Proposed Low-Level Radioactive Waste License No. RW4100 

Regulated Entity Number: RNI04392790/CNumber: CN600616890 

Dear Mr. Kunihiro: 

Over the past seven months, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has conducted a 

detailed technical review of the Waste Control Specia lists LLC (WCS) application for licensing the proposed 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. For the past 60 days, that review has centered upon 

consideration of responses by WCS to a Technical Notice of Deficiency issued by the TCEQ on September 

16, 2005. Our review to date has revealed that many teclmical deficiencies continue to be unresolved. As 

before, the noted deficiencies are provided in twelve (12) attachments to this letter that are correlated with 

designated sections of the license application. Those attachments request additional information to resolve 

the noted deficiencies. Under separate cover, labeled "CONFIDENTIAL," we are submitting two additional 

attachments that request information to resolve deficiencies regarding financial information that you have 

designated as "CONFIDENTIAL." 

The organization of this second and final notice of deficiency continues that of the first technical notice. 

Comments in the first notice for which complete responses were received, are so identified. Repeated 

comments from the first notice generally contain guidance, in boldface type, that is intended to further 

identify information being sought. Also, any new corrnents are identified. 

In reviewing the responses to the Technical Notice of Deficiency dated September 16,2005, TCEQ staff 

reviewers attempted to locate all referred-to pages, figures, and sections that were responsive to comments. 

To ensure that staff locates the intended response, please make complete references to specific volume 

numbers as well as corresponding sections, appendices, figure numbers, and page numbers of the application. 

Also, when stating that a "clarification has been made," please describe explicitly in yqur response what sort 

of clarification was made and specifically where in the application the clarification can be found. Your 

assistance with these references will ensure that staff is reviewing the correct information in response to any 

. 

attached comment in order to bring unresolved issues to closure. 

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512/239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us

Mr. Dean Kunihiro 

Page 2 


The number and nature of the unresolved deficiencies in the license application are significant at this late 

point in the technical review. It is important to the outcome of technical recommendations that these issues 

be satisfactorily resolved in a timely manner. "If the necessary information is not received by the executive 

director prior to the end of the response period, the executive director may return the application to the 

applicant," (30 TAC §281.19(c)). 

Please submit an original response and eight (8) copies of yoUT application revisions, including the signature 

page of the application, within 60 days of the date of this letter. Please post the revised application in a 

publicly accessible location, and to the website, including all amendments and or supplements to the 

application in accordance with 30 TAC §336.805(4). 

If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at (512) 239-6787, or you may write 

me at the following address: TCEQ, Office of Permitting, Remediation & Registration, Waste Permits 

Division, Director's Office (MC-126), P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. 

Sincerely, 

'4uJl 

Ja queline S. Hardee, P.E., Director 

aste Permits Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

cc: 

Mr. Stephen L. Cook, P.E., Cook-Joyce Inc., - Austin

Attachment 1 

Second Technical Notice of Deficiency 


General Information 

Section 1.19 

If land, including mineral interests, is not owned in fee by the Applicant, indicate how the 

requirements of §§336.710 and 336.734 will be addressed. [30 TAC §336.807(d)(9)] & 

[THSC §401.204] 

New Overall Comment: The Applicant petitioned the <strong>commission</strong> on 11/29/2005 to request the 

attorney general to institute condemnation proceedings in accordance with Section 401.204(c) of 

the Texas Radiation Control Act and 30 TAC §336.808(c); however, the petition is not a formal 

part of the application at this time. Section 336.808(c) requires that the petition must include a 

demonstration of the Applicant’s good faith effort to acquire the mineral rights or to enter into a 

surface use agreement, and provide an appraisal of the fair market value of the mineral interest. 

The following questions relate to the Applicant’s efforts to acquire the mineral rights beneath 

the proposed facilities and establish a fair market value of the mineral interest. 

1. New Comment: The executive director has received correspondence from mineral interest 

owners expressing concerns that Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS) is not operating in good 

faith. The complaint specifically alleges that WCS’ efforts to deal with the mineral interest 

owners have been “superficial at best.” 

Requested Action: Please provide a copy of the petition and all supporting exhibits as an 

official part of the application. The petition must demonstrate that WCS has made a good faith 

effort to purchase the remaining mineral rights in Section 25. This demonstration should include 

a summary of WCS’ negotiation efforts, a list of all mineral interest owners who have been 

contacted by WCS or their representatives, and a discussion of any follow up correspondence to 

address questions or concerns from mineral interest owners. 

2. New Comment: Offers to purchase mineral interests contain the following statement: 

“Waste Control Specialists purchased their minerals from Exxon Mobil Corporation for a 

purchase price of $225.00 per net mineral acre.” (Exhibit D, Correspondence from T. V. Dwyer 

to J. Sughru, Apache Corporation, dated July 28, 2004). It is recognized that evaluation of 

mineral interests is difficult; however, it is important to clearly understand the basis for $225.00 

per net mineral acre as a fair market price offered to other mineral owners in Section 25 under 

reported good faith negotiations. 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 11

Requested Action: Please provide documentation of the WCS purchase of mineral rights from 

Exxon Mobil Corporation for a purchase price of $225.00 per net mineral acre. Please discuss 

the terms of the agreement with Exxon Mobil Corporation to purchase their mineral rights, 

especially with regard to ongoing royalty and leasehold agreements, if any. Please discuss the 

conditions under which mineral and leasehold interest in these sections were sold by Exxon 

Mobil and what price was paid for those interests. Finally, please discuss any other 

compensation that Exxon Mobil Corporation may have received other than the above-mentioned 

purchase price for their mineral and leasehold interests. 

Section 1.19.2 

The Applicant may demonstrate compliance by having acquired an undivided ownership of 

the buildings and surface estate, along with an exemption, granted by the <strong>commission</strong> in 

accordance with federal law for use of a surface use agreement, in lieu of acquiring fee 

simple title to the mineral estate. [30 TAC §336.207(4)] The application for exemption 

must be submitted with the license application in order to satisfy the requirements of the 

administrative review of the application. [30 TAC §336.808(b)] 

1. Comment: The Applicant has submitted two applications for exemption from TCEQ rules 

(Volume 2, Appendix 1.19.2). The first application is a request for exemption from the federal 

facility land ownership requirements. The second application is a request for exemption from 

the mineral ownership requirements. The executive director has deferred consideration of these 

requests until the technical review of the application could be commenced. 

30 TAC Section 336.734(a) states that disposal of waste received from other persons may be 

permitted only on land owned in fee by the State or the federal government. Section 336.710 

requires the Applicant to include a certification by the State or federal government which will 

own the disposal site stating that the State or federal government is prepared to accept transfer of 

the license after proper closure of the site and will assume responsibility for custodial care after 

site closure and post-closure observation and maintenance. In addition, for the disposal of 

federal facility waste, 30 TAC §336.909(2) provides that the licensee shall submit to the 

<strong>commission</strong> a written agreement, acceptable to the executive director and signed by the United 

States Secretary of Energy, stating that the federal government will assume all right, title, and 

interest in land and buildings acquired under 30 TAC §336.710 for the disposal of federal facility 

waste. 

Federal Facility Exemption Request 

Volume 2, Appendix 1.21.1 of the application contains a letter from George Dials to Spencer 

Abraham dated July 30, 2004. The letter states that WCS is willing and able to comply with the 

property and license transfer requirements. The letter also requests a meeting with Department 

of Energy officials to discuss the license and facility transfer requirements. The application 

does not include the required written agreement signed by the Secretary of Energy stating that 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 11

the federal government will assume ownership of the land and perform custodial care after site 

closure. In addition, 30 TAC §336.5(a)(4)(B) requires that a request for exemption must include 

a detailed explanation, including a demonstration as appropriate, that the proposed exemption is 

at least as protective of the environment and the public health as the method or standard 

prescribed by the <strong>commission</strong> rule that would otherwise apply. 

Requested Action: Please provide the required written agreement signed by the Secretary of 

Energy stating that the federal government will assume ownership of the land and perform 

custodial care after site closure. Also, please provide a demonstration that the proposed 

exemption is at least as protective of the environment and the public health as the method or 

standard prescribed by the <strong>commission</strong> rule that would otherwise apply. 

Please submit a copy of the draft written agreement sent to Secretary of Energy Bodman 

on November 28, 2005. Please include any correspondence between WCS, or their agents, 

and the United States Department of Energy related to obtaining the certification required 

under 30 TAC §336.710. 

The authority to convey all required right, title, and interest in the federal facility waste 

disposal facility to the federal government upon de<strong>commission</strong>ing rather than upon 

licensure is contingent upon obtaining both the required certification from the federal 

government and the granting of the proposed exemption by the TCEQ. The transfer may 

occur at de<strong>commission</strong>ing only if the Applicant has received an exemption from the 

governmental ownership requirements of 30 TAC §336.734. To state that as a practical 

matter, there is no need for governmental control during the operations phase is 

insufficient justification for the proposed exemption and does not meet the equivalency 

standard provided in 30 TAC §336.5(a)(4)(B). 

The use of a perpetual surface use agreement causes several concerns. The Applicant has 

not demonstrated that surface use agreements are acceptable to the federal government 

and that these agreements are consistent with federal law. There have been a very limited 

number of surface use agreements executed to date. The surface use agreements are 

narrowly tailored to address access to the surface by mineral interest owners. They do not 

address access to the property by others. Also, it is not clear from the agreements that 

their intent is for perpetuity and that such an instrument is enforceable during institutional 

control of the facility. Please demonstrate that the surface use agreements are enforceable. 

Finally, the Applicant’s intention to establish a “financial assurance trust account” and 

fund a “perpetual care account” is unclear with regard to the purpose of such accounts in 

relation to the proposed exemption. Financial assurance is required whether the proposed 

exemption is granted or not. Also, the financial assurance mechanisms referred to in the 

first technical notice of deficiency are not consistent with mechanisms proposed in other 

sections of the application. Please clarify and ensure that the financial assurance 

mechanisms proposed by the Applicant are consistent throughout the application. 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 11

Overall, the information provided by the Applicant in response to the first technical notice 

of deficiency does not support the conclusion that the protection offered by WCS during 

the operational phase of the Federal Facility will be equivalent to the protection offered by 

outright governmental ownership of the Federal Facility prior to accepting waste. Please 

provide additional information and evidence to demonstrate that the proposed exemption 

is at least as protective as the governmental ownership requirements of 30 TAC §336.734. 

Mineral Ownership Exemption Request 

Volume 2, Appendix 1.21.1 of the application contains a letter from George Dials to Glenn 

Shankle dated July 30, 2004. The letter states that WCS is willing and able to comply with the 

property and license transfer requirements. The letter also requests a meeting with TCEQ 

officials to discuss the license and facility transfer requirements. To date, however, the 

application does not include a letter to the executive director requesting that the TCEQ accept 

transfer of title in fee simple to the land and mineral rights, buildings and compact waste 

associated with the disposal site of the proposed compact waste disposal facility in accordance 

with the provisions of 30 TAC §336.710. 

Section 336.808(b) states if the ownership of the mineral interest in fee simple is exempted, the 

Applicant must have entered into a surface use agreement that restricts access to natural 

resources to the extent necessary to prevent intrusion into the site. As an alternative, the 

Applicant may petition the <strong>commission</strong> to request the attorney general to institute condemnation 

proceedings to acquire fee simple interest in the mineral rights in accordance with 30 TAC 

§336.808(c). 

Section 336.5(a)(4)(B) requires that a request for exemption must include a detailed explanation, 

including a demonstration as appropriate, that the proposed exemption is at least as protective of 

the environment and the public health as the method or standard prescribed by the <strong>commission</strong> 

rule that would otherwise apply. 

Requested Action: Please provide a letter to the executive director requesting a certification 

that the TCEQ will accept transfer of title in fee simple to the land and mineral rights, buildings 

and compact waste associated with the disposal site of the proposed compact waste disposal 

facility. If the Applicant has been unsuccessful in acquiring undivided ownership of the mineral 

interest in fee simple, please provide evidence either that the Applicant has entered into surface 

use agreements that restrict access to natural resources or provide a request to the executive 

director to begin state condemnation proceedings under 30 TAC §336.808(c). See the additional 

comments below regarding the surface use agreements. Also, please provide a demonstration 

that the proposed exemption is at least as protective of the environment and the public health as 

the method or standard prescribed by the <strong>commission</strong> rule that would otherwise apply. 

The Applicant petitioned the <strong>commission</strong> on 11/29/2005 to request the attorney general to 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 11

institute condemnation proceedings in accordance with Section 401.204(c) of the Texas 

Radiation Control Act and 30 TAC §336.808(c); however, the petition is not a part of the 

application materials at this time. Please provide a copy of the petition and all supporting 

exhibits as an official part of the application. Initiation of condemnation proceedings 

cannot be accepted as ownership in fee in advance of the fact. Further, a license cannot be 

granted until ownership issues are resolved. 

Regarding the Applicant’s statement that surface use agreements and other restrictive 

covenants are at least as protective as ownership of the mineral interests in fee, it is noted 

that only four surface use agreements have been executed as of November 17, 2005. These 

agreements represent a total fractional interest of less than 0.003% of Section 25. Basing 

the exemption request on a limited number of surface use agreements is insufficient to 

justify granting of the exemption. Surface use agreements, in and of themselves, do not 

meet the equivalency standard provided in 30 TAC §336.5(a)(4)(B) because they are not as 

protective as outright ownership of the mineral interests. The information presented in the 

Applicant’s response to the first technical notice of deficiency does not support the 

Applicant’s conclusion that surface use agreements and other restrictive covenants are at 

least as protective as ownership of the mineral interests in fee. Please provide additional 

information and evidence to demonstrate that the proposed exemption is at least as 

protective as the ownership in fee requirements specified in 30 TAC §336.734(a). Also, 

please provide examples of the “other restrictive covenants” referred to in the Applicant’s 

response for TCEQ review. 

2. Comment: Answered in TNOD1 response. 

3. Comment: 30 TAC §336.808(b) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that surface use 

agreements are compatible with federal law. Both applications for exemption state that WCS’ 

application is compatible with federal law because of the precedent established by Envirocare’s 

exemption request and NRC’s subsequent determination that granting the exemption did not 

justify revoking Utah’s Agreement State status. However, neither the Envirocare exemption 

application nor the NRC’s response is included in WCS’ application. Without this information 

and a demonstration to establish similar circumstances in the WCS case, it is difficult to 

determine if the Envirocare matter establishes precedent to conclude that the proposed WCS 

exemption is permissible under federal law. 

Requested Action: Please provide documentation on the Envirocare exemption request and the 

NRC’s response. 

The data presented in the Applicant’s response to the first technical notice of deficiency is 

not sufficient to finalize a technical review and to determine compliance with agency rules. 

The Applicant has not established that surface use agreements are permissible under 

federal law as required by 30 TAC §336.808(b). The Applicant refers to the Envirocare 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 5 of 11

exemption as justification for granting the proposed exemption; however, surface use 

agreements were not used in the Envirocare case because the entire site, including the 

mineral rights were already owned in fee by the operator. Further, the Envirocare 

exemption cannot be cited as a precedent for granting an exemption from the 

governmental ownership requirements because the facts relating to the Utah exemption are 

different from the WCS exemption request. Also, the NRC has stated in writing that there 

is no precedent set in the Envirocare case with regard to exemption from governmental 

ownership requirements. Please explain why the Envirocare case is precedential given the 

NRC’s comment. Please provide an analysis demonstrating that surface use agreements 

are permissible under federal law as required by 30 TAC §336.808(b). Please provide a 

demonstration to establish circumstances comparing the merits of the Envirocare 

exemption and the WCS request for exemption. 


5. Comment: The ownership report dated April 18, 2003 shows that many of the mineral 

interests are held by production (HBP) by an oil and gas lease recorded in Book 36, Page 264. 

Also, the ownership report says that this lease was dated April 13, 1946. The records of 

Andrews County, however, show this lease to be recorded on July 3, 1936. 

Requested Action: Please provide a production history of the well or wells holding this lease, 

establishing that there has been continuous production (HBP) from this lease. Please clarify the 

discrepancy between the date of ownership and date of record. 



Please provide the well production history data from the Railroad Commission of Texas. 


7. Comment: Title comment number 1 in the ownership report refers to a term assignment 

recorded in Book 698, Page 484 from Exxon to Ventana Exploration. 

Requested Action: Please furnish evidence showing if this assignment is being maintained by 

the continuous development provision. If this assignment is still in effect, did WCS make an 

offer to purchase the overriding royalty interests created in Book 708, Page 478, Book 708, Page 

481 and Book 708, Page 484? 



Please provide evidence that the required document has been recorded in the Andrews 

County deed records. 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 6 of 11

8. Comment: The following oil and gas leases have not been released of record: 

• Book 54, Page 33 


• Book 333, Page 242 

• Book 333, Page 245 


Requested Action: Please provide releases of these oil and gas leases to show that they are not 

still in effect. These may be obtained from the oil and gas companies that had the leases. 

The data presented in the Applicant’s response to the first technical notice of deficiency is not 

sufficient to finalize a technical review and to determine compliance with agency rules. Please 

provide an affidavit of non-production for NW/4 and provide evidence that the affidavit has been 

recorded in the Andrews County deed records. 

9. Comment: The ownership report shows T. M. Crawford owning a 1/4th mineral interest. 

The Applicant appears to have mineral deeds from Thomas M. Crawford and John Scott 

Crawford. 

Requested Action: Please provide evidence that these two parties own any mineral interest. 



Please provide a copy of the probate proceedings for Thomas M. Crawford. Please provide 

evidence that the probate has been recorded in Andrews County. 

10. Comment: The ownership report shows mineral interests owned by the trust under the will 

of Frederick P. Wheeler and heirs of Frederick P. Wheeler. 

Requested Action: Please furnish probate proceeding on Helen Wheeler. 



Please provide a copy of the probate proceedings for the Estate of Helen Wheeler. Please 

provide evidence that the probate has been recorded in Andrews County. 



13. Comment: By instrument recorded in Book 767, Page 784 Max Coll II conveyed a mineral 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 7 of 11

interest to Sally Rogers, but the interest conveyed is ambiguous. 

Requested Action: Unless you are able to purchase the interest of Sally Rogers, please furnish 

a stipulation of interest between Max Coll II and Sally Rogers. 



Please provide evidence that Sally Rogers has sold her mineral interests in the NE/4 and 

S/2 of Section 25 to WCS. Please provide evidence that the Deed has been recorded in 

Andrews County. 


15. Comment: The ownership report shows Rose Masser Weston, Trustee of the Rose Masser 

Weston Royalty Trust under Trust Agreement dated 5/1/86 owning a 1/96 mineral interest. By 

instrument recorded in Book 766, Page 687 the trust was conveyed only a royalty interest. 

Requested Action: Please provide evidence showing how the Trust acquired a mineral interest. 



Please provide evidence that the errors relating to these title defects have been corrected. 

Please provide evidence that the corrective instruments have been recorded in Andrews 

County. 

16. Comment: The ownership report shows Charter Royalty 96, Ltd with a 1/384 mineral 

interest in the S/2 and N/2NE/4. The conveyance into Charter Royalty 96, Ltd which is recorded 

in Book 707, Page 447, conveys a mineral interest in the S/2NE only. 

Requested Action: Please furnish evidence showing how they acquired a mineral interest in the 

S/2 and N/2NE/4. 



Please provide evidence that the errors relating to these title defects have been corrected. 

Please provide evidence that the corrective instruments have been recorded in Andrews 

County. 


18. Comment: The ownership report may show title defects in addition to those noted above. 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 8 of 11

Requested Action: Please provide a complete list of title defects or possible exceptions for 

mineral interests in Section 25 which may affect transfer of the title to the State or federal 

government. 



All title defects must be cured. Please provide a title opinion and an abstract of title for 

Section 25, Block A-29. All title defects noted in the title opinion must be cured and the 

curative materials must be recorded in Andrews County. See also additional title defects 

noted below. 



21. New Comment: The following additional title defects are noted as of 12/19/05 for Section 

25, Block A-29, Andrews County, Texas. 

Requested Action: Please provide evidence that the following title defects have been cured and 

the curative materials have been recorded in Andrews County: 

21.1. The probate proceedings on Edith G. Marshall need to be recorded in Andrews County, 

Texas. Edith G. Marshall predeceased her husband Samuel H. Marshall. The conveyance into 

William S. Marshall came from the Trustees under the will of Samuel H. Marshall and since 

Edith predeceased Samuel it is possible that her community interest in this mineral interest was 

devised to a third party. 

21.2. There is a mineral deed from Richard Gile to WCS recorded in Book 843, Page 5. The 

ownership report shows this mineral interest to be owned by Morzie Bradburn Gile. Furnish an 

instrument showing how this mineral interest passed from Morzie Bradburn Gile to Richard Gile 

and record this instrument in Andrews County. 

21.3. In Book 855, Page 1 Sherry Lynn Parker conveyed her mineral interest under this land to 

WCS. The ownership report shows this mineral interest to be owned by Sherry Lynn Lloyd. 

Furnish an affidavit of identity showing that they are one and the same person and record the 

affidavit in Andrews County. 

21.4. There are surface use agreements recorded in Book 853, Page 876 and Book 853, Pag 884 

between WCS and John Richard LeSassier and Danielle LeSassier. The ownership report shows 

this mineral interest to be owned by Anne Lloyd LeSassier. Furnish an instrument showing how 

this mineral interest passed from Anne Lloyd LeSassier to John Richard LeSassier and Danielle 

LeSassier and record that instrument in Andrews County. 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 9 of 11

21.5. There is a mineral deed from Caroline Webster Derbes to WCS recorded in Book 854, 

Page 969. The ownership report doesn’t show any ownership in Caroline Webster Derbes. 

Furnish an instrument conveying a mineral interest into Caroline Webster Derbes and record that 

instrument in Andrews County. 

21.6. The ownership report shows a mineral ownership owned by Republic Royalty Company. 

By instrument recorded in Book 803, Page 253 Republic Royalty Company was merged into 

Dorchester Minerals LP. Furnish evidence that this mineral interest was not subject to the 

merger. 

21.7. The first ownership report furnished showed a mineral interest owned by Sally G. Ramirez 

and the new ownership report shows a mineral interest owned by Sally G. Ramirez Waiien. 

Furnish an affidavit of identity that they are one and the same person and record the affidavit in 


21.8. The first ownership report furnished showed a mineral interest owned by Barbara Pike 

Smith and the new ownership report shows a mineral interest owned by Barbara Lynn Pike. 

Furnish an affidavit of identity that they are one and the same person and record the affidavit in 


21.9. The first ownership report furnished showed a mineral interest owned by Connie Pike 

McGuire and the new ownership report shows a mineral interest owned by Connie Pike 

Hildebrand. Furnish an affidavit of identity that they are one and the same person and record the 


21.10. The old ownership report shows a mineral interest owned by Alfred Cooper, Trustee and 

the new ownership report shows this mineral interest to be owned by James G. White, Jr.. 

Furnish an instrument showing how this mineral interest was conveyed from Alfred G. Cooper, 

Trustee to James G. White, Jr. and record that instrument in Andrews County. 

21.11. By instrument recorded in Book 816, Page 138 W. M. Beerchl conveyed his mineral 

interest to Eulogy Investments. The ownership report shows this mineral interest to be owned by 

Eulogy Partnership. Furnish an instrument showing the conveyance from Eulogy Investments to 

Eulogy Partnership and record that instrument in Andrews County. 

21.12. The new ownership report shows mineral interests owned by Betsy Webster Hutchison, 

Ashlee Crawford and Brad Crawford. They were not shown as owners on the old ownership 

report. Furnish an instrument conveying a mineral interest into these parties and record that 

instrument in Andrews County. 

21.13. The first ownership report furnished showed a mineral interest owned by Natasha N. 

Ramirez and the new ownership report shows a mineral interest owned by Natasha N. Ramirez 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 10 of 11

Leland. Furnish an affidavit of identity that they are one and the same person and record the 


21.14. The old ownership report shows a mineral interest owned by Elizabeth W. Wyman. In 

Book 841, Page 423 the Elizabeth W. Wyman 2001 Revocable Trust conveyed all its mineral 

interest to WCS. Furnish an instrument by which Elizabeth W. Wyman conveyed her mineral 

interest to the Elizabeth W. Wyman 2001 Revocable Trust and record that instrument in 



Provide the Applicant’s compliance history to demonstrate its regard for the regulatory 

process. [THSC §401.112(a)(5)] 

1. New Comment: Volume 2, Appendix 1.23, Compliance History, provides copies of 

inspection reports issued by the Texas Department of Health, now the Texas Department of State 

Health Services (TDSHS), for the period between May 11, 1999 and July 27, 2004. 

Requested Action: Please update Appendix 1.23 to include all inspection reports issued by the 

TDSHS from July 27, 2004 to the present. Please include all Notices of Violations (NOVs) and 

their severity levels. Please provide a discussion of how all non-compliances have been 

addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of TDSHS. 

Attachment 1 


1/30/2006 Page 11 of 11

Attachment 2 



Site Characteristics 

Section 2.1.5.3 

Submit as "Attachment F" a drawn-to-scale topographic map (or other map if a 

topographic map is unavailable) of the facility and area extending at least one mile beyond 

the facility boundaries. Maps must be prepared by a licensed professional engineer or a 

registered surveyor. Maps must be of material suitable for a permanent record, and be on 

sheets 8½ inches by 11 inches or folded to that size, and be on a scale of not less than one 

inch equals two thousand feet. The scale should be adequate to depict the following 

features: all wells (water, oil and gas, disposal, etc.), springs and other surface water 

bodies, listed in public records or otherwise known to the Applicant within one mile of the 

facility property boundary, and the purpose for which each water well is used (e.g., 

domestic, livestock, agricultural, industrial, etc.). 






Section 2.2.1 

Describe and quantify area and site characteristics including historical and cultural 

landmarks, archaeology, demography, and current land uses. [30 TAC §336.708(a)(3), 

336.708(a)(8)(B)] 

1. Comment: The application (on pages 56-57 and pages 100-101 of Appendix 11.1.1, 

Attachment A) states that there are no historic sites registered with the National Register 

of Historic Places or the Registered Texas Historical Landmarks within 2-3 miles of the 

project site. The application does refer to one historic site in New Mexico that is four miles 

from the site, but provides no information about this site. In addition, the application 

refers to a 1994 archaeological study at the site that confirms there are no significant 

cultural resources on the site. According to NRC Regulatory Guide 4.18, Standard Format 

and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste, June, 

1983 (pages 4.18-14- 4.18-15), “survey of the site and surrounding region to a radius of 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 51

approximately 10 km from the site should be performed to identify areas valued for their 

historic, archeological, architectural, scenic, cultural, or natural landmark significance.” 

On page 24 of Appendix 11.1.1., the application refers to the 1994 archaeological and 

cultural resources survey, stating that the study “found no site that is currently listed or 

nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places or the National 

Registry of Historic Landmarks within approximately 10 km of the proposed Site.” 

However, the Cultural Resource Survey prepared in 1994 is based on a 150-acre tract of 

land within the WCS site, and does not contain any reference to cultural, archaeological or 

historical sites within 10 km of the proposed site. Further, Attachment 2 to Appendix 2.2.1 

provides an updated “no effect” determination stamp (June 2004) from the Texas 

Historical Commission for the proposed site. This letter, however, is also based on the 1994 

study which only addresses cultural and archaeological resources within the 150-acre tract 

of land within the site itself, not the area that extends 10 km from the proposed site. 

Requested Action: Please extend the data provided on historic, archaeological, 

architectural, scenic, cultural and natural landmarks to a 10 km radius from the proposed 

site. Please provide “no effect” determination letters from the Texas Historical 

Commission and the New Mexico Office of the State Historian. These letters should 

confirm that the proposed waste site will not adversely affect any archaeological, cultural 

or historical sites in Texas and New Mexico within 10 km of the proposed site. Please 

provide a map showing any National Register Properties, National Natural Landmarks, 

National Parks, Recorded Texas Historical Landmarks, and State Archaeological 

Landmarks located within a 10 km radius. 



Within the region where the land disposal facility is to be located, provide an analysis to 

demonstrate that a disposal site shall be selected so that projected population growth and 

future developments are not likely to affect the ability of the land disposal facility to meet 

the performance objectives of 30 TAC §336.723. [30 TAC §336.728(b)] 

1. Comment: In order to evaluate the local acceptance of the proposed facility, it is 

necessary to know more about the local organizations in Andrews County that support 

business development. On page 29 of the Socioeconomic Impact Statement, there is some 

discussion about the Andrews County Chambers of Commerce and the Andrews Industrial 

Foundation. Also, on page 29, there is a reference to “1993 articles in Appendix D,” though 

there does not seem to be any 1993 articles in Appendix D of the Socioeconomic Impact 

Statement. 

Requested Action: Please provide additional information about the relationship between 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 51

WCS and these organizations. In particular, mention whether WCS and/or its employees 

are members of these organizations. Please clarify the reference to 1993 articles in 

Appendix D. 

2. Comment: The Socioeconomic Impact Statement provides information on race and 

ethnicity in Section 1.1.3 and Table 1.8. Further data relevant to race/ethnicity is provided 

in Figures 5 and 6 in Section 2.3.5, as well as Sections 1.1.6 through 1.1.9 and Tables A.6 

A.7, A.9-A.12, A.21, and A.22. The response to TNOD1 states that Section 2.5 provides 

additional information regarding economic forces in the region. However, this section does 

not describe how economic forces in the region relate to changes in racial/ethnic 

distribution patterns, as requested in TNOD1. Tables A.21 and A.22 provide data on 

race/ethnicity for 1980 and 1990 in the Region of Interest. Further historical data (before 

1980), as well as population projections, would provide more information on ethnic 

distribution patterns over time. An analysis of population trends by ethnicity is relevant to 

the issue of environmental justice, especially if the minority population throughout the 

region is expected to exceed 50% of the total population in the near future. 

Requested Action: Please provide additional data on population by race/ethnicity prior to 

1980, and provide data on projected population trends in the future (minimally, through 

the years that the proposed facility will be in operation). For example, population 

projection patterns for the State of Texas (by county and race/ethnicity) can be found at: 

txsdc.utsa.edu/cgi-bin/prj2004totnum.cgi. In addition, provide a qualitative summary that 

discusses (1) why population patterns have been changing in the Region of Interest, and (2) 

whether these population patterns are relevant to environmental justice issues associated 

with the proposed facility. 

3. New Comment: According to NUREG guidelines (NUREG-1748), “environmental justice 

will have to be considered in greater detail” if either the minority or low-income population 

percentage exceeds 50 percent within the Region of Interest, or if the percent of minority or low 

income populations is 20 percent greater than the state average. For the purpose of determining 

Environmental Justice, NUREG guidelines recommend using a minimum radius of 

approximately 4 miles (50 square miles) for facilities located in rural areas. Despite this 4-mile 

radius requirement, NUREG recommends that the geographic scale should be “commensurate 

with the potential impact area, and should include a sample of the surrounding population, e.g., 

at least several block groups.” NUREG guidelines also recommend the use of scoping to 

determine if there are any pockets of low-income or minority communities within a census block 

group that might be adversely affected by a facility. 

According to the Environmental Justice evaluation in the Socioeconomic Impact Statement 

(pages 77-78), the minority population percentage exceeds 50 percent in five of the census tracts 

in the area near the proposed facility: CT 9503 (61.4%) in Andrews County and CT-1 (70.0%), 

CT-2 (66.2%), CT-3 (79.4%), and CT-4 (79.0%) in Lea County. The minority population in 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 51

three of the census tracts (CT-1, CT-3, and CT-4) is 20% higher than the state average in New 

Mexico. Despite these findings, the concluding paragraph of the Environmental Justice Analysis 

states “no disproportionately high or adverse direct or indirect effects to minority or low-income 

communities are anticipated as a result of the proposed facility.” It seems unlikely that there will 

be no disproportionate effects given that residents of Andrews County (where most census tracts 

do not meet 20-50% criteria) will benefit from the tax revenue received from WCS, but residents 

in nearby Lea County (where several census tracts do meet the 20-50% criteria) will not receive 

any benefits from tax revenue. Further, more evidence is required to demonstrate that projected 

transportation routes will not disproportionately affect low-income and minority populations in 

Andrews and Lea County. And, more evidence is required to demonstrate that projected water 

use will not disproportionately affect low-income and minority populations in Andrews and Lea 

County. 

In the Socioeconomic Impact Statement, the data provided for poverty status is broken down by 

race (Tables A.8A-A.8F and Tables A.9A- A.9F), which makes it more difficult to assess the 

percent of households below the poverty level in each census tract. 

Requested Action: Please confirm that the census tracts with minority population percentages 

that exceed the 20%-50% criteria are not within a 4-mile radius of the proposed facility, and 

rephrase this section accordingly. If any census tracts within a 4-mile radius from the proposed 

facility do exceed the 20%-50% criteria, please consider providing a more extensive analysis of 

environmental justice issues. Also, please indicate that scoping methods confirm that there are 

no communities of adversely affected minority or low-income populations within the 4-mile 

radius. 

To provide further support for the concluding statements in the Environmental Justice Analysis, 

please discuss whether the 4-mile radius (~ 50 square miles) is an adequate geographic scope for 

considering environmental justice issues related to the proposed facility. In particular, discuss 

how tax revenues and transportation routes might disproportionately affect low-income and 

minority populations in the surrounding region. 

Please provide two additional tables with aggregate data for poverty status indicators by census 

tract in the Region of Interest (i.e. not broken down by race/ethnicity) for relevant census tracts 

in the State of Texas and the State of New Mexico. 


Describe and quantify socioeconomic effects on surrounding communities of operation of 

the licensed activity and of associated transportation of low-level radioactive waste. 

[THSC §401.112(a)(3)] 

1. Comment: In section 1.3.3 of Appendix 1.1.1-Attachment A, the application discusses 

local attitudes towards the proposed facility. The general conclusion (page 36) is that there 

is a “notable homogeneity of positive community attitudes toward and perceptions of the 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 51

proposed project and acceptance of the associated risks across race/ethnicity, income, 

social status and geographic groups.” This conclusion, however, is based on a small and 

non-random survey within a limited geographic scope. The survey and supporting letters 

(Appendix 11.1.1-Attachment B) suggest that there is strong support from community 

leaders, especially in Andrews County. However, the survey sample is not representative 

of the demographic characteristics of the Region of Interest’s (ROI’s) population (as 

indicated in TNOD1 comments). Therefore, the survey is of limited use to make inferences 

regarding the entire population of the ROI. As indicated in TNOD1 comments, the risk 

perception literature clearly shows that minorities, low-income individuals, and females 

have higher perceptions of risk, and that affluent Anglo males tend to report higher levels 

of trust in industry and government when it comes to environmental issues. Thus, it is not 

surprising that a sample that is disproportionately Anglo, high-income, and male tends to 

report low perceptions of risk and high levels of trust in the reports from the Applicant and 

local officials. Further, our own interviews with local residents indicate that there are 

some public concerns that are not addressed in the WCS application, and that some 

residents are hesitant to publicly express their concerns with the proposed facility. 

U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 4.18 “Standard Format and Content of Environmental 

Reports for Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” June, 1983 indicates that 

“attitudinal surveys should be performed during site characterization” (page 4.18-15). As 

mentioned in TNOD1 comments, statements about local support for the facility would be 

more conclusively supported with a public opinion survey that uses a random sample and a 

significantly valid sample size. Survey questions should address public opinions on various 

costs and benefits associated with this project. The survey sample should include residents 

in surrounding communities in the ROI. Residents in broader affected communities (along 

the transportation routes) may also be included in the survey. Survey methods should 

guarantee the confidentiality of all respondents. Statistical data should compare responses 

along different variables including age, gender, income, ethnicity, and place of residence. 

Requested Action: Please provide more conclusive evidence, including survey-based 

statistical data, to support statements about positive perceptions across race/ethnicity, 

income, social status and geographic location. 

2. Comment: Section 1.3.4 of Appendix 11.1.1-Attachment A shows that there are clear 

objective divisions in the region based on employment, ethnicity, income, etc. Yet, 

numerous statements in this section seem to be designed to discount any differences in 

background and opinion (as indicated in TNOD1 comments). These statements seem to be 

based almost exclusively on the interviews with locals, which, as already noted, were 

apparently conducted with a questionable or biased sample. It may well be that there is 

considerable commonality, but there is little data upon which to base that assessment. It 

appears that the apparent inequalities evident in the population have been considered as 

non-significant in the Applicant’s assessment that there is apparent homogeneity, rather 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 5 of 51

than heterogeneity, in conclusions related to future development, trust in political leaders, 

risk perception, etc. 

Requested Action: Please provide more conclusive data to support these statements 

regarding the opinions of people living in the ROI. This data should be based on more 

conclusive methods, such as a public opinion survey that uses a random sample and a 

statistically valid sample size. 

3. Comment: On pages 43-44 of Appendix 11.1.1-Attachment A, the application makes 

reference to organizations that oppose the WCS site. The application also indicates that 

opposition to the proposed facility is limited (page 49). As indicated in Section 1.3.3.5, only 

a small number of people have publicly expressed concerns with the proposed facility. The 

social science literature, however, is replete with examples of minority and low-income 

populations (of which there are substantial numbers in the ROI) who do not vocally 

organize opposition against the perceived interest of the dominant political and 

economically advantaged persons of an area. It may well be that there is broad based 

support. However, in a situation with such a large contingent of the population being 

ethnic minorities with limited economic resources, it is impossible to assume this without 

valid scientific data. Our own interviews with local residents indicate that there are some 

public concerns that are not addressed in the WCS application, and that some residents are 

hesitant to publicly express their concerns with the proposed facility. 

Requested Action: Please provide more conclusive evidence to support the statement that 

there is no local opposition (vocal or silent) to the proposed facility. This data should be 

based on more conclusive methods, such as a public opinion survey that uses a random 

sample and a statistically valid sample size. 

4. Comment: Appendix B includes formal statements of support for the proposed facility 

from the Andrews County Commission, the Andrews City Council, the Hobbs City 

Commission, the Tatum (NM) Town Council, and the Lovington (NM) City Commission. 

Although Lovington is the County Seat for Lea County, the town of Eunice is more likely to 

be affected by the proposed facility. There is no evidence of support from government 

officials in Eunice. 

Requested Action: Please provide comparable evidence of support from government 

officials in Eunice, New Mexico. If support from government officials in Eunice, New 

Mexico differs from other government officials, please provide statements and evidence of 

such in the application. 

5. Comment: In one of the TNOD1 comments, a descriptive summary of any meetings 

with government officials and political hearings that have taken place at the local, regional, 

and state levels in regards to the proposed facility was requested. The request in TNOD1 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 6 of 51

stated that dates, locations, topics, and outcomes of meetings and hearings should be 

included. The revised application now includes a summary of meetings and hearings in 

Appendix D of the Socioeconomic Impact Statement. However, it seems that this is a 

partial list of relevant meetings and hearings. There is no mention of meeting with 

government officials at regional and state levels. And, one meeting in particular (the 

Senate Natural Resources Hearing on February 1, 2005) is excluded from the list, though 

the hearing is discussed on page 94-95 of the Socioeconomic Impact Analysis. 

In addition, the same TNOD1 comment requested clarification regarding a “third party” 

study that independently reviewed the impacts of the proposed facility (cited in the 2 nd 

revision of the application on pages 2-28 and 2-29). According to the “third party” study, 

“[t]he results of those efforts have reinforced the view of an informed population that the 

project poses less risk to workers than the oil and gas business. Beyond that, most 

individuals and groups that have expressed opinions about the potential environmental 

risk to the area believe the project is well conceived and poses no tangible threat of off-site 

contamination.” No documentation regarding this third party study has been provided, so 

there is no way to evaluate the validity of the results nor the conclusions stated here. 

Requested Action: Please provide additional information regarding the meetings and 

hearings that relate to the proposed facility. And, please provide detailed documentation 

of the methods, techniques, and findings of the “third party” study. 


7. Comment: The WCS response to TNOD1 states that the Wetlands Park Project in 

Andrews County is unlikely to be affected by the proposed WCS facility, yet no reference 

to this was added to the Socioeconomic Impact Statement. 

Requested Action: Please provide a reference to the Wetlands Park Project in the 

Socioeconomic Impact Statement. 

8. Comment: In Appendix D of the Socioeconomic Impact Statement, there is information 

on the WCS public relations office, as well as the outreach meetings and site tours offered 

to the public. However, as noted in TNOD1, the application does not discuss how WCS 

answers specific questions about the proposed facility. In conversations with residents of 

the affected region, several residents expressed the following concerns, listed below in the 

form of questions: (1) Is it possible that the WCS site would become a target for terrorists? 

If the site were targeted by terrorists, how secure is the site? ;(2) If there were an accident 

at the site that injured workers and/or affected the health of residents, who would be liable 

for paying any injury or wrongful death claims? Who would be liable for paying any 

expenses associated with an emergency evacuation? ;(3) If the red clay in the area fractures 

at the surface during dry conditions, does WCS expect the red clay formation to contain 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 7 of 51

adiation? ;(4) How might low-level radiation exposure from the WCS site further 

compound existing health problems that result from toxins associated with the oil and gas 

industry? ;(5) Will WCS stop after it receives licenses for LLRW Compact waste and 

Federal Facility RCRA waste or will these licenses be the first of several types of 

radioactive waste that WCS plans to store and dispose of in Andrews County? ; and (6) 

Accidental gas line explosions are not uncommon in the region. Is there any chance that 

any buried gas lines will be accidentally exploded during the construction phase of the 

WCS facility? These public concerns are not addressed in the application, and the 

application provides limited information about the ways in which WCS answers questions 

raised by the public regarding the risks associated with the proposed facility. 

Requested Action: Please provide specific examples of how WCS would respond to these 

perceived risks in language and vernacular that is accessible to laypersons. Please indicate 

whether the public relations office is capable of addressing concerns in a multilingual 

format; e.g., Spanish. 

9. Comment: The revised version of the application includes a table on English 

proficiency in the region (Table A.23). The table is not referenced in the text of the 

Socioeconomic Impact Assessment. The table indicates the number of persons age 5 or 

older that speak English “not well” or “not at all.” Although the census data distinguishes 

between children 5-17, adults 18-64, and adults 65 and over, such disaggregated 

information is not provided in the table. Further, definitions for Limited English 

Proficiency vary. Some definitions, such as one used by the Voting Rights Act, include 

three census categories regarding English language proficiency: “not at all,” “not well,” 

and “well” while excluding “very well.” Other definitions include just two census 

categories – “not at all” and “not well.” By lumping age categories together and by 

excluding all categories that are less than “very well,” Table A.23 minimizes the Limited 

English Proficiency issue for people living in the Region of Interest. 

In the previous TNOD1, WCS was asked to provide information on multilingual issues 

related to public relations. The TNOD1 response indicates how multilingual issues will be 

dealt with in the future, but does not refer to past practices. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 8 of 51

Requested Action: Please provide reference to Table A.23 in the main text of the 

Socioeconomic Impact Analysis (SIA). Please revise Table A.23 (or add additional tables) 

in a way that further distinguishes English Language proficiency by age and level of 

proficiency. 

In addition, please discuss the extent to which WCS has dealt with multilingual issues 

related to public relations in the past. (For example, has the public relations office 

provided written information and tours for Spanish speakers? Have the public 

announcements related to WCS been provided in both English and Spanish?) 

10. Comment: One of the TNOD1 comments requested clarification regarding the 

inconsistent figures for the number of workers that will be hired during the construction 

and operation phases of the proposed facility. Some clarification was provided. The 

application now consistently refers to 25 workers during the construction phase. In 

addition, the response to TNOD1 states that WCS has revised estimates for the number of 

full-time workers (operation phase) from 37 to 26. However, the earlier estimate of 37 fulltime 

workers is used throughout the Socioeconomic Impact Assessment (SIA). By using 37 

workers instead of 26 workers, the multiplier effects are exaggerated. 

Requested Action: Please revise all sections of the SIA that refer to the number of new 

jobs that will be created during the operation phase and the economic impacts of these new 

jobs. Please clarify inconsistencies regarding the number of workers that will be hired 

during the construction phase, and adjust any relevant calculations in the SIA accordingly. 

11. Comment: In response to TNOD1 comment, WCS has clarified that the 25 

construction workers are likely to live in the ROI during the construction phase, and 27 of 

the 34 indirect and induced jobs will be in the ROI. In light of the specialized construction 

requirements for this waste facility, it is still unclear how many of the 25 construction jobs 

are likely to be filled by local construction workers. No data was provided from previous 

construction activities at the WCS site. 

Requested action: Please clarify the extent to which local construction workers (and 

contractors) have the necessary skills and experience to be hired for these new positions. 

When possible, use data from previous construction activities at WCS, as applicable. If 

necessary, adjust the estimated indirect and induced direct job and income impacts. 


13. Comment: In response to TNOD1, WCS has provided Table A.24 describing the 

qualification and training requirements for various positions at WCS. This table is 

referenced in the new Section 2.3.1.8 of the SIA. Although this information is helpful, 

additional information that was requested in the TNOD1 comment was not provided. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 9 of 51

Although the table provides three categories of workers (maintenance, operation, and 

technician), it excludes construction worker and management positions. Although the table 

provides information on various jobs, it is still unclear how many of each of these job 

positions will be created through the proposed project, and what salaries/wages will be 

associated with each of these jobs. Conversations with residents in the affected region 

indicate that local residents are concerned about the quantity and quality of jobs that are 

likely to be filled by locals. 

Requested Action: Please expand the table to include construction worker and 

management positions. Please provide additional information specifying the number of 

jobs by job type and the approximate wages/salary by job type that will be created during 

the construction and operation phases of the proposed facility. As appropriate, provide 

estimates based on existing positions at WCS. 

14. Comment: In response to TNOD1, WCS has provided information on the extent to 

which purchases are made locally. According to Section 2.3.1.7, approximately 20% of 

purchases are made locally. Although the TNOD1 comment was made in reference to 

equipment and materials purchased during the Construction phase, the response is 

provided in a description of the Operation phase. It is unclear whether the 20% is in 

reference to both the Construction and the Operation phase. It is also unclear what is 

meant by “locally.” Does “local” refer to the Region of Interest, or to Andrews County? 

Further, if “locally” refers to the ROI and only 20% of purchases are made locally, it 

seems that the gravity model used for economic impacts is inappropriate. According to the 

gravity model, 75.42% of retail sales during the Construction phase, and 75.44% of retail 

sales during the Operation phase occur within the Region of Interest. 

Requested action: Please clarify whether the 20% of local purchases is in reference to 

Operation Phase only, Construction phase only, or both Construction and Operation 

phases. Please clarify what is meant by “locally” in reference to purchases. As necessary, 

please review and refine impacts based upon local versus extra local purchases of 

equipment and materials related to expanding the facility. 

15. Comment: As mentioned in TNOD1, the discussion of the Facility Operation Phase 

(Appendix 11.1.1-Attachment A, Section 2.3) is based almost entirely upon the 1996 

analysis conducted prior to WCS’s opening. The approach appears to be fairly standard 

using I-O models and gravity specifications to distribute the impacts. However, the use of 

this dated analysis undertaken almost 10 year ago, which generated estimates based on 

limited information, and yields impact statements of limited utility and application. WCS 

has been in operation since 1997. The ROI may not have changed significantly, but WCS 

now has an established track record based on its operation since 1997 and information 

based on that record can be utilized to better establish the potential socioeconomic impacts 

on the ROI. If WCS has had a positive impact, then this will only make the argument and 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 10 of 51

case stronger for the license. WCS has already hired employees, some of whom came into 

the area from outside the ROI. The company has already made salary and wage decisions 

related to these employees and these employees have established residences and living 

patterns in the ROI. These data are available from the company and can be utilized to 

develop much more refined impact assessments, based on what is known, not best estimates 

given no or limited information. In response to this TNOD1 comment, WCS provided 

information on the residential patterns of its employees in 2005. This represents a limited 

response to the request, and the data provided was not used to refine the impact analysis 

figures. 

Requested action: Rather than using a simple gravity model, please consider refining the 

socioeconomic impact projections by utilizing known information regarding the company’s 

and its employees’ actions since opening in 1997. Please present these more refined “data 

based” estimates in conjunction with the older 1996 estimates. 

16. Comment: In response to TNOD1, WCS has clarified statements regarding fiscal 

impacts of the proposed facility. In this response, WCS indicates that fiscal impacts could 

be refined with employee residential patterns, yet such data is not provided. 

Requested action: Please consider refining statements on fiscal impacts based on current 

employee residence patterns. 


18. Comment: The application does not contain a detailed discussion of the expected tax 

revenues that will be generated from the proposed LLRW facility. In response to TNOD1, 

the application clarifies the legal requirements and limitations of the gross receipts tax. 

However, there is no discussion of the expected value of this tax and the likely benefits to 

the community. It seems likely that WCS would have an approximate idea of the profits 

expected from Compact and Federal waste revenues. And, it seems likely that Andrews 

County officials would have some idea of how they might use this revenue, in accordance 

with provisions established by state law. 

Requested Action: Please provide approximate estimates for the Gross Receipts Tax 

revenues from the proposed WCS facility (on an annual basis for all years of operation). 

Please discuss the relative impact of these tax revenues by comparing this tax revenue with 

existing tax sources for both Andrews County and the State of Texas. This discussion 

should include a description of the county budget (income and expenditures), such as a pie 

chart. Please provide information that summarizes discussions with government officials 

from Andrews County regarding their plans to use the Gross Receipts Tax revenue. This 

should include any plans to improve or expand social services, plans to hire more county 

workers, plans for capital improvement, plans to reduce other sources of taxation, and 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 11 of 51

costs for increased preparation for emergency response. Please discuss how the impacts of 

this revenue will disproportionately affect communities in the Region of Interest. 

19. Comment: In response to TNOD1, WCS has provided some information regarding 

charitable donations in the region of interest. This information requires some clarification. 

On page 99 of the revised SIA, “community relations expenses” for 2004 total $37,000, and 

this includes “support of little league sports, high school dances, community charities, 

community events and many other activities.” However, on page 103 of the revised SIA, it 

is stated that WCS “donated approximately $76,000 (including $37,000 for Andrews 

Educational Foundation and $8,000 for scholarships).” 

Requested Action: Please clarify the statements regarding charitable donations in the 

ROI. Please clarify whether or not the amount for “community relations” is the same as 

the amount for the Andrews Educational Foundation. If so, please explain how the other 

$31,000 was distributed within the community and/or please indicate if the $31,000 is based 

on either individual employee’s donations in the community and/or in-kind donations. 

Also, please provide a list of any other mitigation measures that WCS has provided (or 

plans to provide) for the affected area. 

20. Comment: In response to TNOD1, WCS has added Section 2.5 on the cumulative 

socioeconomic effects, precedent setting effects, and other benefit and cost issues relevant 

to the proposed license (and other pending activities). The new section provides a useful 

overview of the cumulative socioeconomic effects from proposed developments by WCS 

and LES. Table 2-7, however, includes an incorrect figure for the estimated number of 

workers for LLRW disposal facility. Further, there are several references to the 

“proposed WCS byproduct material landfill” which should state “proposed LLRW waste 

disposal facility.” Also, there is no discussion of the potential impacts to ranchers and local 

water supplies nor the cumulative effects of truck and rail transport. 

Requested Action: Please correct the table with the revised estimate of full-time workers 

during the Operation Phase of the proposed facility. Please correct the text to “proposed 

LLRW waste disposal facility” and confirm that these statements are accurate with this 

correction. Please add discussions and appropriate data concerning impacts on ranchers, 

the local water supply, and the cumulative effects of truck and rail transport to the costs 

and benefits summary. (Refer also to Comment 25 of this section). 



23. Comment: In response to TNOD1, new sections on Agriculture (Section 2.6) and 

Water Use (Section 2.5.10) have been added to the SIA. These new sections do not 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 12 of 51

adequately cover all of the concerns addressed in the comment. Neither the section on 

Agricultural Production nor the section on Water Use deal with the impact of proposed 

facility’s water use on agriculture and ranching. There is no discussion regarding how 

local ranchers will be affected by non-potable water pumped from a local well (estimated at 

50,000 gallons/year). The section on Agricultural Production does not discuss how 

perceptions of water contamination might affect agricultural production and agricultural 

sales, as requested. Data is provided on the water needs for irrigated agriculture 

(projected to by 6,896 acre-feet per year) in Andrews County, but not the volume of water 

needed for other purposes. 

After noting that Andrews County is predicting water shortages in the near future and that 

“no readily available water supplies were identified that could be developed to fully meet 

all irrigation needs,” the SIA states: “there appears to be no conflict between the planned 

expansion of the WCS disposal complex operations and the Regional Water Plan.” The SIA 

needs to explain how WCS came to this conclusion. 

There is no discussion at all of water use patterns and projected water needs for Lea 

County. Given that WCS plans to buy 4 million gallons of water per year from the City of 

Eunice, the SIA should include a discussion of how this is likely to affect Lea County. In 

particular, information on projected water needs for Eunice need to be compared to water 

use estimates by WCS. 

Requested Action: Please provide more specific data for projected water use in Andrews 

County. Please discuss how the proposed facility’s water use will impact agriculture and 

ranching in the region. Please provide more evidence to support the statement that “there 

appears to be no conflict between the planned expansion of the WCS disposal complex 

operations and the Regional Water Plan.” 

Please provide comparable information on water usage patterns and water issues for Lea 

County. Please discuss how purchases of water from Eunice is likely to impact the City of 

Eunice. This discussion should mention the extent to which Eunice faces water shortages 

and the extent to which the sale of water will contribute to Eunice’s operating budget. 

Please explain why the 4 million gallons per year of water purchases from the city of 

Eunice “includes water used by nearby Lea County sanitary landfill.” 

Please explain how water use patterns will change from the Construction Phase to the 

Operation Phase of the proposed project. 

Please discuss how perceptions of water contamination might affect agricultural 

production and agricultural sales. For this last request, consider providing comparative 

data from other sites in the nation that are associated with LLRW. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 13 of 51

24. Comment: In response to TNOD1, WCS has extended the analysis of health patterns 

in the Region of Interest. The additional data provided is insufficient for determining how 

morbidity and mortality patterns have changed over time. The “historical” data provided 

in the new tables does not go back any further than 1993, and is limited in scope (only total 

births and deaths and infant mortality statistics). There is no historical data for morbidity 

patterns, with the exception of a reference to an epidemiological study of cancer rates in 

Texas. The infant mortality rate in Andrews County has increased from 9.9 (average 1993 

1997) to 10.8 (average 1998-2002) per 1000 births, yet there is no discussion of the fact that 

the infant mortality rate in Andrews County is more than the Texas state average of 6.3 

deaths per 1000 births. 

Requested Action: Please expand the analysis of health patterns by discussing how 

morbidity and mortality patterns have changed over time in the region, and how regional 

patterns compare to statewide patterns. Please expand the discussion on infant mortality 

rates in the ROI. 

25. Comment: In response to TNOD1, WCS has provided additional information 

regarding transportation issues in Section 2.4 of the SIA. (1) The clarification regarding 

the possible highway loop around Andrews is sufficient. Information has been requested 

from TXDOT and NMDOT regarding plans that might affect traffic patterns along 

proposed transportation routes, such as plans to build new roads or add traffic lights. 

There is some indication that this information may not be available to the public. (2) The 

new section does not provide requested information on the local highways that will be used 

for likely WCS shipments of LLRW “since potential future clients are as yet unidentified.” 

Without some idea of potential clients, it is unclear how WCS determined that there will be 

700 additional truck shipments and 450 additional rail shipments annually, and it seems 

possible that these figures underestimate the number of waste shipments. The new section 

does not discuss how road and railroad usage might affect road and railroad maintenance, 

nor does it discuss ways in which regional planning organizations have been informed of 

transportation-related issues. (3) Additional information has been added regarding 

average daily traffic on relevant highways in Lea and Andrews Counties. The information 

on traffic accidents is insufficient for analysis. Accident statistics are provided only for Lea 

County, yet accident statistics are not broken down by highway. No accident statistics are 

provided for Andrews County. The TNOD1 response states that accident data has been 

requested from TXDOT and NMDOT. In the previous version of the SIA, it was stated 

that “additional traffic associated with proposed WCS facility would result in six 

additional accidents over the 35-year anticipated operating life of the facility.” There is no 

further information to explain the model used to come up with this calculation. Similarly, 

there is no additional information to explain whether this figure includes transportation of 

waste before it reaches Andrews County, or the Region of Interest. (4) The response is 

sufficient. (5) The revised SIA includes a useful discussion of rail traffic that details the 

routes of LLRW and the positive and negative effects of rail traffic. The revision, however, 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 14 of 51

does not include a map of railroad routes and road-railroad intersections. The discussion 

of rail shipments seems to conflict with other parts of the application that state that waste 

will not arrive by railroad. 

Requested Action: Please respond to the following transportation-related items: (1) Please 

define the term “Rail Shipment.” (2) Please add information from TXDOT and NMDOT 

regarding any proposed plans that will change traffic patterns along the proposed 

transportation routes, such as plans to build new roads or add stoplights to busy highway 

intersections. (3) For each likely waste client, provide data for the transportation plans 

(rail vs. truck, number of shipments, proposed route). Discuss how waste would be routed 

from the major interstate highways to the WCS facility, including routes through and 

around local cities (Andrews, Eunice, Hobbs, Seminole, Jal, Midland/Odessa). Provide a 

map showing these transportation routes. Explain how estimates for 700 additional truck 

shipments and 450 additional rail shipments were determined. Please refine this estimate 

as needed. For instance, please discuss what impacts may occur from additional waste 

transport associated with other facilities on the site; e.g., byproduct waste shipments from 

West Chicago. Discuss how the increased traffic is likely to affect road and railroad 

conditions and whether usage will affect road and railroad maintenance schedules. Please 

add this information to cumulative effects evaluation. Please mention the outcome of any 

meetings with regional planning organizations that deal with transportation issues. (4) 

Please add accident statistics data for Andrews County and Lea County, as requested, from 

TXDOT and NMDOT for Highways SH 176, US 385, FM 1788, FM 181, and FM 1967. 

Also, please provide more information on the model used to calculate the statistical 

probability for traffic accidents. Indicate whether this figure includes the entire route 

from source to the facility. (5) No further requests. (6) Please provide a map that 

illustrates all road-railroad intersections. Please clarify whether the proposed facility will 

involve rail shipments, and ensure that the application is consistent on this issue. 

26. New Comment: In Section 2.3.3 of the SIA, it is noted that the Compact portion of the new 

facility is tax-exempt. Further, “[i]n lieu of the lost tax revenue arising from the conveyance of 

the Compact portion of the new facility to the state, WCS has begun contributing annually to the 

Andrews ISD Education Foundation. In order to assess the impacts to the local community, 

more information is required regarding this agreement. 

Requested Action: Please provide statements from the Andrews ISD Education Foundation 

detailing expectations regarding this agreement to compensate for lost tax revenue. If these 

funds are channeled through the Andrews Industrial Foundation, please provide an additional 

letter of explanation from the Andrews Industrial Foundation. 


Describe and quantify area and site characteristics including air quality, meteorology, 

climatology, and natural hazards. [THSC §401.112(a)(1)] & [30 TAC §336.708(a)(3)] 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 15 of 51

1. Comment: Volume 2A, Appendix 2.3.1 has provided four years of site-specific 

meteorological data. TCEQ has historically used five years of site-specific meteorological data 

in performing Site Specific Risk Assessments. 

Requested Action: Please add site-specific meteorological data for 2004 and 2005 to the 

meteorology section, and amend all data and summary tables in Volume 2A, Appendix 

2.3.1 to include this information. 


Describe and quantify area and site characteristics, including surface hydrology. [THSC 

§401.233(b)] & [30 TAC §336.708(a)(3)] 

1. Comment: The application states that there are no “sustainable surface water bodies within 

five miles of the site” (Volume 1, Section 2.4.1). While it is not clear what is meant by the word 

“sustainable”, it is evident from a recent site visit by agency staff that surface water features such 

as Baker Spring and nearby playas contain water or evidence of water ponding. 

Requested Action: The Applicant has provided information on downstream surface and 

groundwater users and has provided a drought study. The Applicant also has identified 

several surface water bodies within five miles of the facility, but has not described the 

surface water bodies. These descriptions should include drainage basin maps of the 

surface water bodies, quantification of run-on and runoff under different storm events, and 

to what extent the occurrence of surface water may influence groundwater. 

• Please identify and describe all surface water bodies, of any description, that retain water 

for a number of days and occur within a radius of five miles of the proposed facility. 

These descriptions should include drainage basin maps of the surface water features, 

quantification of run-on and runoff under different storm events, and an explanation of 

why there is surface water given the high evapotranspiration rate. (Please refer to Site 

Characterization Handbook for Low Level Radioactive Disposal Facilities, DOE/LLW 

67T, Appendix A, for additional guidance on these subjects). 



4. Comment: Run-off from the diversion ditches appears to discharge flow into an existing 

ditch/stream at a greater amount than that under existing conditions. This increase in flow could 

lead to downstream gully erosion, which could possibly encroach onto the landfill. Releasing 

this run-off at flows equal to or less than existing conditions, or lining the existing ditch/channel 

with erosive resistant materials are suggestions which can minimize this downstream erosion and 

assure long term stability of the site. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 16 of 51

Requested Action: The Applicant has not addressed the impact of greater developed flows 

on erosion into the facility. Please address this issue and demonstrate how potential 

erosion from added runoff is being minimized and will not adversely impact the site’s 

performance. 

5. New Comment: The proposed engineering drawings in Appendix 3.0-3 depict ditches and 

berms diverting run-on away from the site. (Drainage Area 4 is diverted around the landfill 

footprint and through Drainage Area 3.) However, these proposed conditions are not factored 

into the floodplain study in Appendix 2.4.1. 

Requested Action: Please add these proposed conditions to the floodplain study for a more 

complete evaluation of site characteristics. 


Describe and quantify area and site characteristics including geology, seismology and 

topography. [THSC §401.112(a)(1)] & [30 TAC §336.708(a)(3)] 


2. Comment: We were unable to find a discussion of the site-specific geologic attitude of the 

upper geologic formations in the application. 

Requested Action: The Applicant’s response states, in part, “The Ogallala, Gatuña, 

Antlers, and Dockum do not have identifiable bedding planes,” and “During the 

investigation of the excavation of the RCRA landfill no individual bedding planes were 

identified in the Antlers or Dockum.” Figure 6.4-11 of Volume 3 shows bedding planes and 

bedding planes were observed elsewhere offsite during a 2005 field trip with the 

Applicant’s consultants. Please fully respond to this question and base your response on 

known site observations. 

3. Comment: There seem to be inconsistencies among the various figures (maps and cross 

sections) in Volume 3 that portray the distribution, thickness, and elevation of the top and 

bottom of the Dockum sandstone intervals. For example, boring B-16 is shown on the isopach 

map of the 80-foot sandstone (Volume 3, Figure 6.5-13) with a thickness of 15 feet. It is also 

shown on a cross section, (Volume 3, Figure 6.5-7); however, on the cross section the sandstone 

is not identified. Also, boring B-29 which is south of boring B-16, on line with the cross section, 

has a thickness of 5.5 feet shown on the isopach, but is not drawn on the cross section. 

Requested Action: The Applicant corrected some inconsistencies in figures; however, 

additional cross sections were not provided in the response to TNOD1. Please provide 

additional cross sections presented along strike and dip, and which include Baker Spring 

(and its water surface elevation), the RCRA excavation; the buffer zone between the RCRA 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 17 of 51

excavation and the proposed FWF and CWF; the FWF and CWF; and borings north of the 

northern buffer zone. 





8. Comment: The application in Volume 3, page 5-8 reports that “a depression in the surface of 

the Dockum Group corresponds to the overlying topographic depression (playa).” The 

coincidence in space of the surface depression and the depression at top of Dockum level 

suggests that there may be some process that links the two basin-forming events, for example 

dissolution. 

Requested Action: Please provide additional clarification to address the impression that a 

closed depression on the surface overlies a (closed) depression on the top of the Dockum. 

It is our understanding that the application should indicate that the closed surface 

depression overlies a local erosional low in the Dockum. If new drilling data indicates that 

the Dockum low is not a closed depression, then it is suggested that it not be referred to as a 

“depression” in the application. Drilling data from the 225-foot zone alone is inadequate to 

define the presence or absence of such a small feature at this location. Please modify text to 

better reflect the all available data. 


10. Comment: Discussion of Baker Spring in Volume 3, starting on page 5-9, does not indicate 

groundwater discharge as a possible source for the water that ponds in the bottom of it. Instead, 

the application focuses on surface water drainage as the source. The applicant’s consultant’s 

study provided in the application, however, states that, “groundwater appears to be 

discharging from [Gatuña deposits] at Baker Spring.”(see 2000 report by Lehman and 

Rainwater in Volume 4, Appendix 6.2-1). 

Requested Action: The applicant’s response to this comment in TNOD1 discusses the 

possible release of water from localized bank storage during low water stages, but did not 

discuss the discharge of continuous, ambient groundwater in the OAG as a possible source 

for the water that ponds in the bottom of Baker Spring. Please discuss the discharge of 

ambient groundwater from the OAG as a possible source for the water that ponds in the 

bottom of Baker Spring, explicitly commenting on this observation by Lehman and 

Rainwater in the applicant’s study provided as Volume 4, Appendix 6.2-1. Clarification of 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 18 of 51

the alternative explanations for the source of the water in Baker Spring might result from 

additional site characterization efforts using appropriate environmental tracers. (Please 

refer to comment number 52, below). 

11. Comment: The application discusses the Dockum clay in Volume 1A, page 3-19, as being 

“self-healing,” and further states that it will “swell to repair local cracking or deformations.” 

Regarding the Conceptual Release Pathway in Volume 3, page 6-8, much reliance is placed on 

the effectiveness of “swelling montmorillonite clays” in the Cooper Canyon Formation to 

preclude fracture flow. However, we were unable to find any information on the mineralogy of 

the Dockum clays. 

Requested Action: Please provide evidence that the Dockum clays are “self-healing” and 

will “swell to preclude local cracking or deformation” as stated in the application. From 

the Applicant’s response to this TNOD1 comment, in Volume 3, Table 6.5-3, the average of 

the analyses suggests that in the Dockum samples tested, total clay is about 50%; about 

40% of the clay is illite/smectite; and about 30% of the illite/smectite is smectite. No more 

than about 5 to 10% of the “average” Dockum claystone, therefore, is smectite. Please 

provide references (professional peer-reviewed literature) concluding that rocks with 5 

10% smectite will, in the presence of water, be “self-healing” and “swell to preclude local 

cracking or deformation” such that water flow along fractures, faults, joints, bedding 

planes, or other structural features will not occur. Please also provide discussion that 

includes a consideration of probable water chemistry at the site, as this also impacts the 

degree to which swelling of clays may or may not occur. 




15. Comment: Well borings appear to be insufficient in number to adequately support the site 

characterization of the subsurface sandstones and their geometries. Boring density seems 

particularly sparse along the northern perimeter of the FWF and CWF. Since Dockum sandstone 

bodies may be as narrow as 15 feet in width, the current distribution of borings may not indicate, 

for example, the existence or extension of a narrow sandstone body where the borings are spaced 

as much as 1,000 feet apart. Moreover, a sandstone body may be continuous across the site (e.g., 

a channel), but not everywhere present. 

Less than half of the borings located on the footprint or immediately adjacent to the 

circumference of the proposed FWF were drilled deep enough (Volume 5, Appendix 6.5-1) to 

investigate to the proposed depth of the landfill, estimated at 115 feet (Volume 8, Figure CO.3). 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 19 of 51

The occurrence of OAG groundwater is shown beneath the large playa to the north in a boring 

variously denoted as TP-14 (Volume 3, Figure 6.6-3), and T3 (Volume 3, Figure 6.5-1); 

however, it was not offset by any additional investigative borings. This, in effect, means that the 

“zero line” of OAG groundwater could actually extend as far from TP-14/T3 as to B-53, B-47, 

B-48, and/or B-1. Because this playa is within a much larger depression, the possibility of 

additional evidence of recharge in this area needs to be thoroughly studied. 

Requested Action: Please provide updated well borings data and any other related results. 

It is our understanding that the Applicant has drilled new borings and has converted some 

of them to piezometer wells; however, additional borings are being drilled and additional 

wells are being installed to characterize the site. Boring results, interpretations, cross 

sections, and well completion details are to be provided upon completion of drilling and 

well installation. Please provide the results of this new work when addressing the concerns 

stated above. 

16. New Comment: The application covers geology characteristics mostly in Volumes 3, 3A, 

4, 5, 5A, 6, and 6A, however, there is no table of contents. 

Requested Action: Please provide a detailed table of contents for these volumes, i.e., for 

Appendix 2.6.1. 

17. New Comment: The borehole drilling program initiated in 2005 has generated much new 

data that can be added to update the overall understanding of the site characterization. 

Requested Action: Please update all applicable figures in the application with the data gathered 

from the 2005 drilling program. For example, Volume 1, Figure 2.5.1-1a; and Volume 3, Figures 

6.2-10, 6.3-7, 6.4-19a, and 6.4-19c. 

18. New Comment: Please note the following inconsistencies pertaining to boring A-22: 

• The boring log for A-22 (in Volume 5) indicates that the “overburden” is from the 

surface to a depth of 66 feet. The isopach map of the overburden (in Volume 3A, Figure 

6.5-9), however, shows the overburden to be 76 feet thick, while cross sections B-B’ and 

E-E’ (Volume 3A, Figures 6.5-5 and 6.5-8) show the overburden to be 53 feet thick. 

• The boring log for A-22 (in Volume 5) indicates that the top of Dockum is at 

approximately 3,392 feet above mean sea level (msl). The Top of Dockum Group 

Structure maps (Volume 3A, Figures 6.5-10 and 6.5-11), however, show the top of 

Dockum at approximately 3,382 feet msl, while cross sections B-B’ and E-E’ (Volume 

3A, Figures 6.5-5 and 6.5-8) show the top of Dockum at approximately 3,405 feet msl. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 20 of 51

Requested Action: Please address these apparent inconsistencies and provide revisions to 

applicable drawings as needed (e.g., cross sections, isopach maps, and structure contour maps). 

19. New Comment: We note that cross section C-C’ in Volume 3A, Figure 6.5-6 shows boring 

B-19 as being 264 feet deep, however, the boring log in Volume 5 indicates that the boring was 

only 100 feet deep. We also were unable to find any completion details for monitor well MW 

19A, which appears to be in the same location. 

Requested Action: Please clarify this apparent discrepancy. If there is more than one boring 

designated as “B-19,” then please provide the boring log for the one depicted on Figure 6.5-6 of 

Volume 3A. Also, please provide a copy of the completion details for MW-19A, or direct us to 

where it can be found within the application. 

20. New Comment: We note that cross section D-D’ in Volume 3A, Figure 6.5-7 shows boring 

B-5E-A/MW-5E-A. We were unable to find a boring log for this boring or completion details 

for the resultant monitor well. 

Requested Action: Please provide the boring log and monitor well completion details for B-5E 

A/MW-5E-A, or direct us to where these can be found within the application. 

21. New Comment: It is difficult to distinguish the Blackwater Draw, OAG and Caprock 

Caliche on the side faces of the diagrams Figure 2.5.1-1a in Volume 1 and Figure 6.4-19c in 

Volume 3. Also, “Cooper Canyon Siltstone/Sandstone” is included in the legend, but is not 

depicted on the block diagrams. 

Requested Action: Please show the Cooper Canyon siltstones/sandstones in the side faces of 

the block diagrams, and clarify whether the Caprock Caliche is present throughout the area as it 

appears to be represented on this figure. 

22. New Comment: No surface contours are given for the top of the Blackwater Draw in 

Figure 2.5.1-1a of Volume 1 or Figure 6.4-19c of Volume 3. 

Requested Action: Please provide surface contours for the top of the Blackwater Draw in 

Figure 2.5.1-1a of Volume 1 and Figure 6.4-19c of Volume 3. 

23. New Comment: No contour values and no contour interval are given for the top of the 

Cooper Canyon in Figure 2.5.1-1a of Volume 1 or Figure 6.4-19c of Volume 3. 

Requested Action: Please provide the contour values and contour intervals for the top of the 

Cooper Canyon in Figure 2.5.1-1a of Volume 1 and Figure 6.4-19c of Volume 3. 

24. New Comment: The application in Volume 3, page 2 states, “The WCS facility is located 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 21 of 51

over a geologic feature referred to as the red bed ridge.” Also, the new Site Conceptual Model 

(in Volume 1, Figure 2.5.1-1a and in Volume 3A, Figure 6.6-5b) shows the crest of the red bed 

ridge as directly beneath the proposed FWF. We note, however, from a comparison of Figure 

6.4-19a in Volume 3 with Figure 2.5.1-1a of Volume 1 and Figure 6.4-19c of Volume 3 that the 

main regional axis of the red bed ridge (which would seem to correspond to the crest) is shown 

in Volume 3, Figure 6.4-19a as being coincident with the surface topographic high and located 

about 6,500 feet to the northeast of the northern edge of the FWF. 

Requested Action: Please clarify the above-described discrepancy in the location of the red bed 

ridge. Please provide evidence that the facility lies on/in a small topographic high on the 

southwest flank of the Red Bed Ridge. 

25. New Comment: The Applicant’s response to TNOD1 includes a new depiction of the site 

conceptual model, which is essentially a north-south (left to right) structural cross section 

trending approximately along the western boundary of the FWF (Volume 1, Figure 2.5.1-1b, and 

Volume 3A, Figure 6.6-5b). 

Requested Action: Please provide (a) a revised depiction of the current site conceptual model, 

one that includes the RCRA landfill outline; (b) a similar depiction of the site conceptual model, 

but one that trends along the eastern boundary of the FWF (looking west), and which also 

includes the RCRA landfill outline; (b) north-south depictions of the site conceptual model for 

the CWF along its western (including the RCRA landfill outline) and eastern boundaries; and (c) 

approximate east-west depictions of the site conceptual model that include the outlines of the 

FWF, CWF, and proposed 11(e)2 byproduct waste disposal landfills, and Baker Spring. 

26. New Comment: The Applicant’s new depiction of the site conceptual model provides 

incomplete information pertaining to the stratigraphic relationships between the OAG and 

Cooper Canyon sandstones. We note the following from the cross sections in Volume 3A: 

Figure Cross Section Boring Location Connection / Potential Connection 

6.5-5 B-B’ B-4 the 80-ft Sandstone immediately 

underlies the OAG 

6.5-5 B-B’ between B-32 

and NMB-24 

the 80-ft Sandstone and the OAG 

appear to converge 

6.5-5 B-B’ NMB-24 just west of this boring, the 125-ft 

Sandstone and the OAG appear to 

converge 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 22 of 51

6.5-5 B-B’ A-22 the 80-ft Sandstone is separated by 

only about 5 feet of clay from the 

OAG (above) and the 125-ft 

Sandstone (below); all three may 

converge to the east of this boring 

6.5-6 C-C’ B-23 just south of this boring, the 125-ft 


rapidly converge 

6.5-7 D-D’ B-16 the 80-ft Sandstone immediately 


6.5-7 D-D’ B-5 just south of this boring, the 125-ft 


converge 

6.5-8 E-E’ TP-01 the 80-ft Sandstone immediately 


6.5-8 E-E’ TP-01 north of this boring, the 180-ft 

Sandstone and the 225-ft Sandstone 

trend toward convergence 

6.5-8 E-E’ A-22 just south of this boring, the 80-ft 

Sandstone and the 125-ft Sandstone 

appear to rapidly converge 

Requested Action: Please provide a detailed discussion of these stratigraphic relationships. 

Please depict these relationships in all the illustrations of the conceptual model, and all cross 

sections and illustrations requested in other comments in this section. 

27. New Comment: The application characterizes the shallow Cooper Canyon 

siltstones/sandstones as being “lenses” and “discontinuous.” An adequate site characterization 

should include information pertaining to the geologic history of formation of such strata. 

Published literature on the Dockum Group suggests that its sandstones are fluvial-deltaic in 

origin and may represent channel facies and attendant channel sub-facies, for example, channel 

lag deposits, point bars, crevasse splays, overbank deposits, etc. Fluvial-deltaic sandstone bodies 

ordinarily appear lenticular (and perhaps discontinuous) in cross section at right-angles to flow 

direction, yet they may be part of a channel complex which can, in fact, extend for miles. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 23 of 51

Requested Action: Please discuss in detail the depositional environment of the Cooper Canyon 

siltstones/sandstones. Please indicate if they part of a braided stream system or a meandering 

stream system. Please reconcile differing assertions in the application that the sandstones are 

lenses and discontinuous, yet at the same time are likely part of a fluvial network of 

interconnected sandstones that may be laterally extensive. 

28. New Comment: The 3,400-ft elevation contour on the top of the Triassic as drawn on new 

Figure 6.4-19a (Volume 3) indicates a large reentrant to the north, a valley open to the south, in 

the RCRA permit area. No comparable feature is shown on Figure 6.4-19c (Volume 3) or on the 

analogous Figure 2.5.1-1a (Volume 1), although all figures are presented as representing the top 

of the Dockum red beds. 

Requested Action: Please provide revisions to all figures as necessary based on new data and 

present a consistent interpretation of the top of the Triassic. 

29. New Comment: A review of Figure 6.4-27f in Volume 3 indicates that the location of the 

RCRA permit area is not marked correctly. Also, the locations of the FWF and CWF do not 

appear to be consistent with other maps in the application. Some of the playas in the immediate 

vicinity of the CWF are not indicated as surface depressions. 

Requested Action: Please make revisions to Volume 3, Figure 6.4-27f to the address the 

comment above. 


Demonstrate that the disposal site avoids tectonic processes such as faulting, folding, 

seismic activity, or vulcanism that occur with such frequency and extent as to significantly 

affect the ability of the disposal site to meet the performance objectives of 30 TAC 

§336.723, or may preclude defensible modeling and prediction of long-term impacts. [30 

TAC §336.728(i)] 


2. Comment: The application in Volume 1, page 2-40 states that the reverse faults occurring in 

Triassic strata in the RCRA excavation were “clearly not formed in the current stress field, 

which is extensional...” This seems to contradict the discussion of the Rattlesnake Canyon 

Earthquake on page 2-39 which is said to be related to a reverse fault. If an earthquake 

associated with reverse displacement occurred in 1992, seven to 11 miles from the site, then a 

statement that the reverse faults in the RCRA pit Triassic rocks were “clearly not formed in the 

current stress field, which is extensional…” is inconsistent. 

Requested Action: The Applicant makes no mention of the compressive stress field or 

regional compression. Please include information on the compressive stress field in both 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 24 of 51

Section 2.5.2 and Appendix 2.6.1. 

3. Comment: The application in Volume 1, p. 2-41, describes “minor volcanism in Trans- 

Pecos Texas and northeastern New Mexico” as occurring “between about 27 and 31 million 

years ago” and references Henry and Price, 1985. A reference check indicates that this reference 

does not characterize the volcanism as minor (especially as it continues well into Mexico), says 

little or nothing about northeastern New Mexico, and states that “most of the activity, including 

all caldera formation, was between 38 and 28 m.y.a.” 

Requested Action: The Applicant did not revise the text, as stated. Instead, the reference 

was completely omitted. Please include the reference, using the correct dates. 

4. Comment: We were unable to find Table 1, “Fault Source Parameters for the WCS 

Analysis,” in Volume 2B, Appendix 2.5.2. 

Requested Action: Please provide the table, or direct us to where it can be found in the 

application. 






10. Comment: It is not clear from Volume 3, Figure 6.4-11 how deep the main reverse fault 

propagates into the Dockum. 

Requested Action: Application materials have provided some evidence of distributed shear 

upward with loss of displacement on the main fault planes. Please explain the evidence 

that there is also loss of displacement on the main fault planes downward, and how it has 

been demonstrated that displacement does not, in fact, increase downward. 

11. Comment: From Figure 6.4-11 in Volume 3, it appears that the sandstone cut by the main 

fault may intersect with the southern sidewall of the FWF. 

Requested Action: The Applicant’s response states that this sandstone is present in B 

32/32A and B-60. Figure 6.4-11 in Volume 3 has the top of the sandstone at approximately 

32 feet below the top of Dockum and dipping northward at the north end of the figure. The 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 25 of 51

first sandstone below the top of Dockum in B-32 is at about 76 feet below top of Dockum. 

Please identify whether this is the same sandstone. Also, we could find no such boring as B 

60 on any of the figures. Please identify B-60 on figures. The text of the application should 

discuss the expected existence of this sandstone in the sidewall of the proposed FWF. 

12. Comment: The text in Volume 3, pages 4-6 to 4-7 describes “well-developed joints at 

about 0.5 to 1 foot spacing” that are part of an “orthogonal regional jointing system” and a set of 

lower angle, “wavy” joints. On the June 2005 field trip, gypsum veins, one centimeter or more in 

width, were noted in joints in the Cooper Canyon Formation in the RCRA excavation, indicating 

that these structural features were fluid-filled at some time in the past. This observation seems to 

conflict with statements in the application that swelling montmorillonite clays and small fracture 

apertures preclude or severely limit the potential for fracture flow. 

Requested Action: 

• The Applicant’s response seems to contend that all naturally occurring (i.e., not 

induced by excavation) fractures and joints were developed under saturated 

conditions. Please provide evidence to support this contention. 

• The Applicant’s response does not address fracture aperture. Fracture aperture is 

an important issue for modeling and performance assessment, and the RCRA pit is 

one place where the Applicant can obtain real data to evaluate this parameter. 

Please address fracture aperture at the proposed site. 

• Please explain what is the mechanical impact of gypsum on the swelling argument to 

close fractures. Please address possible voids in the middle of the vein that would 

remain open even under saturated conditions, assuming swelling closes the fractures 

elsewhere. 

• Please explain what the impact of gypsum is on the modeling results indicating that 

water movement will be considerably slowed by matrix imbibition into the clay 

matrix. TOUGH2 modeling considers that matrix imbibition retards water 

movement so much that other parameters are unimportant. This problem is similar 

to the impact of coatings on flow. 

• Swelling is also a function of the ionic strength of the surrounding water. A clay will 

not swell if ionic strength is above some threshold. Since swelling is such an 

important aspect of the model, please add demonstrative discussion on this topic. 



15. Comment: The Applicant in its response advocates a “remarkable” coincidence of a 

buried feature with modern topography. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 26 of 51

Requested Action: Please explain the physical relationship and processes that have 

produced this relationship, and clarify evidence for the Red Bed Ridge as a topographic 

high. 



18. New Comment: The discussion on swelling clays in revised section 2.5.2 in Volume 1 is 

incomplete. 

Requested Action: Please note in section 2.5.2 that since less than 50% of the “average” 

Dockum claystone is clay, the typical smectite content, based on available analyses, is no more 

than 5 to 10 %. (Please refer to similar comment in Section 2.5.1, comment number 11, above). 

19. New Comment: The text in Volume 1, page 2-39, and Volume 3, page 4-2.1 has the names 

and identification numbers of the probable nearest and next-nearest Quaternary faults reversed. 

Requested Action: Please correct the text in the application. 

20. New Comment: The application in Volume 1, page 2-40 states that there is “no surface or 

subsurface evidence of active faulting or folding within 3,000 feet of the WCS property.” 

Requested Action: Please provide evidence or justification for selecting the distance of 3,000 

feet. Please describe the closest locations to the site where there is possible evidence of active 

faulting or folding. 

21. New Comment: Revised section 4.1 in Volume 3 states that the Guadalupe fault is the 

closest Quaternary fault “with the most recent deformation estimated at 1.6 million years ago.” 

Requested Action: Please revise this statement to conform to the reference where the most 

recent offset is stated to be less than 1.6 Ma. 

22. New Comment: The application notes in Volume 3 on page 4-9, and elsewhere, that a 

characteristic “parting” is present and “developed at the top of the altered red beds;” however, 

Figure 6.4-11 in Volume 3 illustrates the parting below the top of the altered red beds and, to the 

south, the parting is illustrated as separating the upper altered clay from the lower altered clay. 

Requested Action: Please clarify the stratigraphic position of the parting and revise the figure 

and applicable sections of text, as appropriate. 


Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 27 of 51

Demonstrate that the disposal site avoids areas where surface geologic processes such as 

mass wasting, erosion, slumping, landsliding, or weathering occur with such frequency and 

extent to significantly affect the ability of the disposal site to meet the performance 

objectives of 30 TAC §336.723 or may preclude defensible modeling and prediction of longterm 

impacts. [30 TAC §336.728(j)] 

1. Comment: To address erosion, the application largely defers (Volume 1, Section 2.5; and 

Volume 3, Section 4.3) to a non peer-reviewed study (Volume 2B, Appendix 2.5.3; and Volume 

4, Appendix 6.4-1) which concludes that the surface of the High Plains is not eroding over time, 

but instead is aggrading from the addition of eolian sediment. Perhaps as a result of this, the 

application appears to assume an erosion rate of zero for its RESRAD model runs (Volumes 10 

and 11), but no site-specific data on erosion is provided to compare with regional studies. 

We note, however, that the application projects (in Volume 8B, Attachment 3.0-3.18) that 

vertical wind erosion will reach the top of the waste at approximately 7,800 years. The 

application also discusses potential migration of Monument Draw (Volume 3), where “parallel 

slope retreat” (almost 100 ft in 1,000 years at 1.18 inches per year) could impact the facility 

before the axis of the Draw itself were to migrate to the site. In Volume 3, page 4-18, the 

statement appears that, “The lineament in the vicinity of the WCS facility is considered to be an 

erosional feature.” 

Recommended Action: The Applicant’s response does not fully address the potential 

long-term erosion on the natural slope to Monument Draw, New Mexico. Please make a 

response that is specific to long-term erosion on the natural slope, especially including 

focused runoff from ditches on the facility. 

2. Comment: The application in Volume 1, page 2-37, Geologic Subsidence, contains a 

summary discussion which appears incomplete as it does not discuss the “Interior Dissolution 

Zone” of the Southern High Plains shown in Lehman’s erosion report (Vol. 4, Figure 8), the 

large (usually alkaline) lakes on the southern High Plains that may have formed by salt 

dissolution (e.g., Whalen Lake and Shafter Lake), the presence of the Pleistocene Tahoka 

Formation east of the site, and the proximity to the salt dissolution areas immediately west of the 

site. 

Requested Action: Figures 6.4-27c and 6.4-27d show a 200 to 300-foot drop in the top of 

the Rustler and Yates in New Mexico relative to the site, but this does not appear in the 

isopach map (Figure 6.4-27e). Please explain these geometries and any implications for salt 

dissolution west of the site. 

3. Comment: The application states in Volume 1, page 2-37 that “No subsidence features 

related to geologic processes have been identified within the proposed Site boundary.” In 

Volume 3, page 4-26, the application states, “The origin of the playas in the vicinity of the WCS 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 28 of 51

permitted area facility is most likely the result of.. localized dissolution of the Caprock caliche at 

or near the ground surface.” 

Requested Action: Regarding the discussion of the pathway analysis in the Applicant’s 

response to this comment, please refer to an existing cross section or provide a revised 

analysis that illustrates the current saturation of the OAG and the hypothetical change in 

saturation required for groundwater in the OAG to “enter the drainage layer above the 

performance liner.” 

4. Comment: The application in Volume 1A, page 3-17 states that the surface water channels 

capture surface water at the site and discharge east of the CWF onto the slope to Monument 

Draw, New Mexico. Surface water discharged from these channels on the slope to Monument 

Draw may result in erosion. 

Requested Action: The Applicant’s response does not address the question of erosion on 

the natural slope to Monument Draw, New Mexico. Only erosion along ditches and berms 

is discussed. Please address erosion on the natural slope of Monument Draw. 

5. Comment: The application in Volume 3, page 4-21 states that “sediment removal is limited 

by low annual rainfall. . . .” This has been a consistently true statement for most years, but as has 

been recently experienced, there exist exceptional years when rainfall exceeds 30 inches. Over 

the lifetime of the containment, there may be multiple years of higher than normal precipitation 

and higher than normal erosion rates. 


• The analysis provided by the Applicant does not consider the impact on the slope to 

Monument Draw, New Mexico from focused flow from the ditches on the facility as 

calculated elsewhere in the application. Please address this issue. 

• The Applicant calculates the time required (160,000 years) for the “flank” of 

Monument Draw, New Mexico to retreat three miles eastward to the WCS facility at 

an average rate of 1.18 inches per year. The geology section refers to “parallel slope 

retreat,” which assumes modern slopes are maintained into the future as erosion 

proceeds. Parallel slope retreat would clearly impact the integrity of the facilities 

many thousands of years before the “flank” of Monument Draw, New Mexico were 

to retreat three miles eastward to the WCS facility. Please reconsider this issue and 

provide one or more cross sections that illustrate the progressive erosion of the slope 

to Monument Draw and all facilities located on this slope using the Applicant’s 

erosion rates (1.18 in/yr) and “parallel slope retreat.” 


Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 29 of 51



9. Comment: The application in Volume 8B, Attachment 3.0-3.18, “Erosion, Water (Universal 

Soil Loss Equation), and Wind, page 1 (not paginated), states that, “Geological studies confirm 

that the area is aggrading and soil will increase in thickness with time.” We were unable to locate 

any data, however, that indicate the slope to Monument Draw (NM), which hosts the disposal 

units, is aggrading. 

Requested Action: Please refer to requested actions on comments 4 and 5, above. 

1. New Comment: The Applicant claims that the erosion rate it uses is conservative and, 

therefore, the time to uncover the waste using this rate is unrealistically short (7,800 years). A 

computer model, for example, ConCEPTS, SWAT, or EPIC, which uses site-specific data for 

inputs, may more accurately determine the time to erode the cover and its various layers. In 

addition, one can account for variability and uncertainty using these models as well as input 

future climate change. At least one of these models can also perform large-scale site assessments 

on the order of square miles, which could aid in accounting for the erosion of the slope to 

Monument Draw. The Applicant, on the other hand, is relying solely on a single deterministic 

equation (MUSLE) to determine the erosion at the site. 

Requested Action: Please provide a computer simulation indicating the amount of erosion over 

time to support claims made in the application. 

2. New Comment: Federal guidance on low-level waste disposal in NUREG-0902, Site 

Suitability, Selection, and Characterization, states on page 16, “Parshall flumes and sediment 

samplers should be installed, where appropriate, to determine the rate of erosion of site soil 

deposits under varying gradients and ground conditions. Particle-size distribution, soil cohesion, 

and soil dispersion tests should be performed, as needed, to determine the erodibility of site soil 

deposits.” 

Requested Action: Please address these recommendations with respect to erosion at the site. 


Describe and quantify area and site characteristics including geotechnical features, 

geochemistry, soils, and natural radiation background. [30 TAC §336.708(a)(3)] 



Describe and quantify area and site characteristics including ground water hydrology. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 30 of 51

[THSC §401.233(b)] & [30 TAC §336.708(a)(3)] 


2. Comment: The playa/depression area on the north side of the site has a drainage area of 

approximately 680 acres (Volume 1, Attachment F). The 100- and 500-year storm events were 

modeled in Volume 2A, Appendix 2.4.1, and the boundaries of both are approximately 400 feet 

from the disposal sites. 

Requested Action: Please discuss how increased saturation of the OAG, which could lead 

to infiltration of water into the performance cover in the future, may affect the 

performance assessment or pathway analysis. The performance assessment runs assume 

that some water flows through the liners. Lateral flow from the playas can increase the 

flux. This is not specifically addressed in the section on performance assessment. Please 

demonstrate that the sensitivity analyses performed considers the above and also 

demonstrate that they are conservative. 



5. Comment: Volume 1, page 2-60 of the application states that “two in-situ hydraulic 

conductivity tests were calculated . . . for monitoring wells (in the 225-foot zone).” 

Requested Action: The Applicant clarified the identification of the monitoring wells but 

did not discuss the adequacy of the hydraulic conductivity testing. Please explain and 

defend the adequacy of the number of tests and related results to characterize the 

formation, e.g., homogeneity vs heterogeneity and/or isotropy vs anisotropy. Also, two 

notes on Volume 1, Section 2.10.3, which the Applicant refers to in its response: (a) there 

are three separate and distinct pages designated as “2-60” (the revision relative to this 

question is on the third of the three pages); please revise the pagination in Volume 1, 

Section 2 to include only one page “2-60.” (b) “Hydrology and Water Quality” is not the 

title of section 2.10.3, but a subheading. 

6. Comment: The application in Volume 3, page 6-2 states, “Saturated conditions were 

encountered in the OAG unit at seven of the total of 172 borings..” It should be noted, however, 

that some of these 172 borings were not deep enough to evaluate the OAG-Triassic contact, 

which is the setting at the site where perched water in the OAG is most commonly present. 

Also, there are additional borings to the east of the permitted area that encountered groundwater 

in the OAG, including 17 of the 34 Texas Tech piezometers in the near vicinity of the site 

boundary (page 6-3 and Fig. 6.6.3). 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 31 of 51

Requested Action: It is unclear from the Applicant’s response where revisions have been 

made or why the requested clarification would be in Section 2.6.1. The answer given does 

not appear responsive to the question. Please provide additional discussion concerning 

potential lateral groundwater pathways in the OAG associated with results indicated by these 

additional borings. 

7. Comment: It appears that Volume 3, Figure 6.6-3, “OAG Groundwater Thickness” does not 

include all known OAG wells in the immediate area, which may possibly provide greater 

accuracy to the map. 

Requested Action: With regard to the Applicant’s response, Figure 6.6-3 (now in Volume 

3A) also has a “dry line” (which coincides with the intersection of the water table with the 

contact between the OAG and top of Dockum). It is not necessary, however, to have data 

on top of red bed elevations or saturated thickness to draw a wet-dry line. Please consider 

whether or not the inclusion of the windmills as indicators of being on the “wet side” of the 

dry line would alter this figure. 

8. Comment: Comparing Volume 3, Figures 6.6-3 and 6.5-10, which show the occurrences of 

groundwater in OAG and the structure contours on top of the Dockum, is somewhat difficult 

given the use of different scales and different populations of borings. The north side of the 

permitted area is sparsely drilled, but available data suggest a large low in the Dockum surface 

(at approximately 3,430 elevation), which generally underlies the large topographic surface 

depression (USGS topographic map, “Eunice NE”). Available data on Figure 6.5-10 could be 

interpreted in such as way that the 3,430 top-of-Dockum contour closely approximates the 3,485 

closed topographic contour. 

The five feet of saturated OAG encountered in boring TP-14 may be much more laterally 

extensive than is inferred on Figure 6.6-3. As drawn, the margin of this saturated area is less 

than 1,200 ft from the northeast corner of the FWF. More definitive characterization of the 

saturated OAG in the vicinity of boring TP-14 may be important as this could represent a 

potentially significant volume of water above and lateral to the proposed facilities. This is of 

special concern because of the potential for local recharge through any or all of the surface 

depressions and playas, and the large surface depression which appears to be the catchment for 

surface runoff in this area. 

Requested Action: The boring numbers are not consistent among the figures. Please 

correct or explain in the legends. We note that the saturated thickness at TP-14 in the 

previous version (Figure 6.6-3, date-stamped 12/13/2004) was reported to be 5.0 feet. 

Please explain why is it now reported on Figure 6.6-3a as 10.0 feet, indicating that the 

saturated thickness has increased by 5.0 feet. Please address the potential for lateral flow 

from or to the OAG, as indicated in the above comment and in the Requested Action for 

Comment 10 below. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 32 of 51


10. Comment: Regarding Matrix-dominated flow (Volume 3, Figures 6.6-5a and 6.6-7): The 

figures do not seem to illustrate the overlying OAG or the uppermost Triassic strata. It appears 

that no lateral flow from these shallow units is considered in the modeling. Consideration of 

lateral flow is important as a possible pathway for leachate from the facilities. 


• Please refer to our response in Comment 2, above, in the same section. Lateral flow 

is discussed only in the context of transport out of the landfill. Please discuss lateral 

flow as a means to increase the local vertical flux and how, in a wetter climate, the 

percolation flux through the landfill cover could increase and increased recharge 

from the playas could also generate locally saturated conditions. 

• Relative to computing the flux through the liner, the method of multiplying 

precipitation rates by a factor of two and not changing any of the other HELP 

parameters (Volume 10, Appendices 8.0-6 and 8.0-7) is not satisfactory. Wetter and 

colder climates as predicted for the next few thousand years will likely increase the 

precipitation rate. The infiltration rate will also increase since evapotranspiration 

will be less. (The Yucca Mountain Project may have predicted climatological data 

for Hobbs, NM). Please demonstrate that the infiltration rate is not significantly 

different in the latter case and that the multipliers used in TOUGH2 simulations 

(Volume 3, p. 6-34) are conservatively realistic. 

• Please provide additional cross sections. 

11. Comment: Page 10 of the geology report by Lehman and Rainwater (2000) in Volume 4, 

Appendix 6.2-1, describes Baker Spring as probably being an ephemeral point of discharge for 

water from the OAG: “groundwater appears to be discharging from these deposits [Gatuña 

Formation] at Baker Spring.” The section, Discharge of Groundwater (Volume 1, page 2-54), 

however, does not address this. 

Requested Action: Please include Lehman and Rainwater’s observations from Volume 4, 

Appendix 6.2-1 in the text of the application. The revised application excludes the 

observation of Lehman and Rainwater that a natural seep is present at Baker Spring, and 

the revision does not preclude the possibility that the ponded surface water is augmented 

by some natural discharge from the OAG, even though ephemeral or minor in volume. 

Lehman and Rainwater’s observations would seem to be as valid, or more so, as the 

opinion of the mine manager, especially since photos from 1939 show a pond, and the mine 

manager probably was not present during operations that ceased at Baker Spring in the 

1950s. We note also that the Applicant’s response refers to revisions that were made to 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 33 of 51

Volume 1, Section 2.7.2, when Section 2.7.4 was intended. Please make corrections as 

necessary. 


13. Comment: Figure 6.6-3 in Volume 3 shows OAG groundwater elevation data. The figure 

covers much of the same area as Volume 3, Figure 6.6-1, which depicts water wells. Figure 6.6 

3, however, does not include any of the seven water wells appearing on Figure 6.6-1. 

Requested Action: The Applicant’s response states that survey corrections were made to 

boring and well locations in Volume 3, Tables 6.5-1.1 through 6.5-1.7. Please ensure that 

the figures have likewise been revised to reflect the corrections in the survey data. 


15. Comment: The summary discussion of lineaments in Volume 1, page 2-42, and the more 

detailed discussion in Volume 3, does not discuss the significance of lineaments as possible 

indicators of structural features that may impact recharge and fracture flow. 

Requested Action: Please address the impact of these features. The analysis depends in 

part on assumptions of fracture aperture. Fracture aperture is back-calculated from the 

measured permeability and the cubic law (p.6-43 of volume 3). This approach is 

problematic. Our understanding is that matrix permeability is used, not whole rock (field) 

permeability (it is called “bulk” in Table 6.6-4h but “matrix” permeability in the text). 

This results in a smaller aperture. If measurement was done on a saturated sample and if a 

fracture was present, the sample was probably already in a “swelling” mode and one 

cannot take credit for additional swelling. A second problem is related to the number N of 

fractures. It is not well described in the application. If there are two orthogonal sets of 

fractures one foot apart, that is a total of approximately six fractures/m 3 . Please address 

these issues in the summary discussion of lineaments. 

16. Comment: The application in Volume 3, page 5-15 states that the permeability of the 

Cooper Canyon claystone is 10 -10 to 10 -8 centimeters per second based on laboratory tests. 

Examples of other sites (e.g., Yucca Mountain) exist where investigations have underestimated 

the permeability and hydraulic conductivity of the system by relying on laboratory tests, 

commonly of small samples from core, that fail to adequately measure the bulk characteristics of 

the enclosing rock, and especially the role of fractures, bedding planes, and other structural 

features. 

Requested Action: The Applicant’s response addressed fractures, but did not address all of 

the requested action. Please clearly state the degree of parameter uncertainty, especially 

for permeability and hydraulic conductivity, and how this uncertainty is quantified. Also, 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 34 of 51

please provide data given to justify fracture aperture used. 


18. Comment: For the information on water wells already provided in the application (in 

Volume 3, Table 6.3-1; Volume 3, Figure 6.6-1; and Volume 6A, Appendix 6.6-1, up to a threemile 

radius), we note that the following water wells, shown as “windmills” on the USGS 

topographic map, “EUNICE NE, TEX. - N. MEX.,” did not appear to be included: 

Water Wells Located on Flying “W” Ranch Property 

• Water well located approximately 10,000 feet east of the eastern RCRA permit boundary. 

• Water well located approximately 9,500 feet east of the eastern RCRA permit boundary. 

• Water well located approximately 9,500 feet southeast of the southeast corner of the 

RCRA permit boundary. 

• Water well located approximately 9,000 feet south of State Highway 176, and 

approximately 1,500 feet east of the NM-TX border. 


approximately 750 feet east of the NM-TX border. 

Water Wells Located in New Mexico 

• Water well located approximately 9,500 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the 

RCRA permit boundary (in New Mexico). 

• Water well located in Section 5, about 1/2 mile west of the Lea County Landfill. 

Requested Action: The Applicant’s response stated that “These wells have been 

investigated in the field,” but mentioned nothing specific about the following wells. If these 

wells still exist, and especially if they are producing from the OAG, it would likely provide 

more data to give a fuller picture of the OAG saturation and the extent of the water table 

to the south. (Please refer to related New Comment 64, below). Please discuss whether field 

investigations were conducted to determine the existence and other data of the following 

windmill wells, and if they were determined to exist or not at this time: 

Water Wells Located on Flying “W” Ranch Property: 


Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 35 of 51

approximately 750 feet east of the NM-TX border. 


approximately 1,500 feet east of the NM-TX border. 

Water Wells Located in New Mexico: 

• Water well located in Section 5, about 1/2 mile west of the Lea County Landfill. 

We noticed that there are many water wells and clustered water well locations given in 

Volume 6A, Appendix 6.6-1 that are not included in Volume 1, Figure 2.2.1-3; Volume 3, 

Table 6.3-1; or Volume 3A, Figure 6.6-1. Please include these and any other omitted well 

locations within the radii of investigation for the respective figures and tables, including 

updates to relevant OAG maps (e.g., Volume 3A, Figures 6.6-3 and 6.6-3a), if applicable. 

Example locations that were omitted are 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 36, and 40. 

Questions concerning existence of any well should be verified and documented by field 

reconnaissance. 









27. Comment: The shallow materials in the Triassic at the site are fractured. During the site 

visit of June 2005, agency technical staff also observed both horizontally and vertically inclined 

gypsum veins in the exposed Triassic sediments within the RCRA excavation. The aperture of 

these veins was on the order of several centimeters in several locations. The presence of 

gypsum-filled fractures indicates that at some time there were fractures that were open and fluid 

filled. 

Requested Action: Please provide data or other demonstration to support assumptions of 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 36 of 51

fracture aperture. Regarding the clays, please refer to our comments on Attachment 2, 

Section 2.5.1, Comment #11. Please provide a copy of Glass et al., 1973 referred to in the 


28. Comment: Reliable age dates of groundwaters in the OAG and underlying Cooper Canyon 

units should provide information on hydrologic processes that verify or refute important 

elements of the conceptual model of the hydrologic system. Appropriate age dating procedures 

could include tritium dating to determine if there is a component of “young” water (~after 1950) 

in the samples and carbon-14 (percent modern carbon) to determine if the water is older (~pre 

1950). 

Tritium dating or tritium/helium dating can be used to determine if water is young (see Solomon, 

2000). Tritium data will provide information on the presence of young water in the sample; 

tritium/helium data can provide an age for the water. Please conduct tritium dating rather than 

tritium/helium dating on water in the OAG unit because the saturated thickness of this unit is so 

shallow that helium may be lost to diffusion. Also, please conduct tritium dating of water in the 

Cooper Canyon unit to determine if there is a component of young water in the samples. The low 

Henry’s law constant for tritium (17.5 x 10 -6 ) indicates that most tritium is in the liquid phase 

and it should not be impacted by the relatively long time required to fill the well and collect a 

sample. Presence of bomb-pulse tritium greater than the detection limit will provide information 

on preferential flow through the fine-grained sediments. Tritium can be analyzed in the 

laboratory using gas proportional counting or helium ingrowth with very low detection limits at 

the University of Miami Tritium Laboratory. 

It may be possible to estimate the age of water in the Cooper Canyon using carbon-14 (14C) 

analysis. Carbon-14 analyses can be conducted using accelerator mass spectroscopy at various 

locations (e.g., Purdue PRIME Laboratory, Illinois; Arizona AMS Laboratory). (Approximately 

500 mL of water is required. Analysis cost is approximately $500). If the water has low percent 

modern carbon (PMC) (i.e., < 2 – 3 PMC) then it would be considered “older” (~pre-1950). If 

the water has higher PMC, then corrections may be required to estimate the age. Our 

understanding from preliminary discussions about sampling for carbon-14 analysis in low 

permeability geologic units with researchers at Purdue’s Prime Laboratory and University of 

Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy facility did not indicate serious problems related to the 

long time required for the well to refill. Carbon-14 ages for various aquifers in the High Plains 

provided by Dutton (1995) should provide a baseline for comparison with data obtained from the 

proposed low-level radioactive waste disposal site. Values of PMC for the Ogallala range from 

10 – 107 PMC and for the Dockum from 1 – 13 PMC; therefore, water from the different units 

should be readily distinguishable. 

References: 

Solomon DK, P.G. C. 2000. 3H and 3He. In Environmental Tracers in Subsurface Hydrology, P. 

G. Cook, A. L. Herczeg (ed). Kluwer Acad. Publ.: 397-424. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 37 of 51

Dutton AR. 1995. Groundwater isotopic evidence for paleorecharge in U.S. High Plains aquifers. 

Quaternary Research 43: 221-231. 

Univ. of Arizona AMS: http://www.physics.arizona.edu/ams/ 

Univ. of Miami Tritium Laboratory http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/tritium/ 

Purdue PRIME Laboratory, Illinois: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/primelab/ 

Requested Action: Please provide requested groundwater age dating. This data is essential 

in enabling a more complete characterization of the hydrogeology of the site. 




32. Comment: We note from Volume 5, Table 6.5-1.1 that boring B-39 was converted to a 

monitor well (“5-C” per Volume 7, Appendix 2.6.2) with a 20-foot screened interval across the 

180-foot sandstone from approximately 173 to 193 feet below ground surface. Cross section D 

D' in Volume 3, Figure 6.5-7, however, does not show this screened interval for monitor well 5 

C or the potentiometric surface. The Applicant in its response to this comment in TNOD1 

stated that the potentiometric surface in 5C was not depicted in Figure 6.5-7 because it is 

not in the 225-foot sandstone. 

Requested Action: Although we understand that monitor well 5-C is screened in the 180 

foot sandstone and that the 180-foot sandstone has a potentiometric surface apart from the 

potentiometric surface in the 225-foot sandstone, please indicate the screened interval and 

potentiometric surface for monitor well 5-C on the cross section in Volume 3A, Figure 6.5 

7, in order to provide more complete information on the site hydrogeology in this figure. 

33. Comment: The Applicant has undertaken new field work or is concluding additional 

analyses related to this TNOD1 comment. 

Requested Action: Please submit relevant information related to new field work and 

additional analysis. 




Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 38 of 51

37. Comment: Please submit relevant information related to new field work and additional 

analysis. It is our understanding that the Applicant has undertaken new field work or is 

concluding additional analyses related to this comment. Please note that several statements 

in the Applicant’s response need supporting references from the relevant literature (e.g., 

underestimation of moisture content in claystones due to presence of montmorillonite 

clays). Also, the Applicant’s construction of a “quasi steady-state” subsurface flow system, 

citing large frictional losses in the claystone materials and based on an analogy between a 

small diameter pipe and those materials, is posed without mathematical, literature, or field 

support. Therefore it appears that the Applicant only proposes this construction as a 

hypothesis, possibly to be given support. It seems that a simple application of Darcy’s Law, 

using estimates of hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic gradient, could be used to 

approximate the “minimal flux into the claystones” and out of the 225-ft zone. The 

necessary magnitudes of other fluxes cited by the Applicant (e.g., vaporization) to support 

a “quasi steady-state” condition could then be evaluated by comparison with the expected 

values of those fluxes. 

Also, in this response the Applicant appears to rely on an upward gradient within the 225 

ft. sandstone zone. The existence of such a gradient was the subject of a previous TNOD1 

comment, “there were no measurements of the vertical gradient in the 225-ft zone despite 

the existence of nine nested pairs if wells in that zone.” This issue is given further 

discussion in Comment 49 below. 

38. Comment: Please provide information requested. Given the potential difficulties 

mentioned by the Applicant in determining the geometry of the water table, modeled 

approximations of that geometry might assist in the interpretation of field measurements 

and in evaluating the multiple conceptual models of subsurface flow that have been 

hypothesized by the Applicant. 

The Applicant’s discussion of the results of a simplified modeling of the upward diffusion 

of the hydraulic head from the 225-ft zone necessitates several comments. First, analytical 

solutions to the classical diffusion equation exhibit infinite signal propagation speed; the 

solution discussed by the Applicant thus predicts a finite value for hydraulic head at all 

locations above the 80-ft depth focused upon in the Applicant’s response. This finite value 

is exhibited by the solution not only at a time of 100,000 years, but at any non-zero time 

(i.e., immediately). Thus, the solution indicates a water table present above the 80-ft depth 

discussed in the response. Without additional commentary on these aspects of the 

presented analytical solution, the Applicant’s response is incomplete. 

A possible salient feature of the problem considered by the Applicant is that in an isotropic, 

homogeneous, porous media (assumptions supporting the analytical solution discussed by 

the Applicant), the steady-state locus of the phreatic surface is independent of the 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 39 of 51

hydraulic conductivity (according to Bear, as cited in the TNOD1 comment). 1 This 

observation might be inconsistent with the Applicant’s use of a mathematical model that 

seemingly does not allow the determination of the locus of zero gauge pressure (the 

phreatic surface). 


analyses related to this comment. 




41. Comment: Answered in TNOD1 response. This comment refers only to the Applicant’s 

recognition of the potential importance of diffusion as a transport mechanism for 

radionuclides at the proposed disposal site, not pathway analyses incorporated into the 

Performance Assessment. 










45. Comment: Answered in TNOD1 response. Note this comment pertains only to the 

Applicant’s observations regarding subsurface structures, not to any results of a revised 

performance assessment reflecting these structures. Also, regarding the issue of 

“bathtubbing,” please see Attachment 3, Section 3.6, Comment 1, in this TNOD2. 

1 

“Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media,” Jacob Bear. 1972. Chapter 7. “Solving 

Boundary and Initial Value Problems.” 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 40 of 51

46. Comment: Answered in TNOD1 response. Note that Applicant’s response may require 

reevaluation when field testing and analyses currently in progress is completed. 


48: Comment: Please provide information requested. The Applicant has not explicitly 

addressed the possible role of fractures in explaining the partitioning of the available wells 

into two classes: wells with water levels that stabilize, and those with water levels that do 

not. It appears that a significant percentage of the wells installed by the Applicant are in 

the class of wells with water levels that do not stabilize. Also, the Applicant has not 

provided spatial postings of the wells in each class to see if the classes can be correlated or 

otherwise associated with subsurface structures. Furthermore, it seems possible that the 

“unstabilized” wells have, in fact, already stabilized, but at water levels significantly 

different than levels in the “stabilized” wells. If this is the case then the “smoothed” 

hydraulic head field obtained from the first class of wells and used to compute the 

hydraulic gradient within the Red Bed Clays might provide a poor approximation to a 

more erratic subsurface flow field. Localized zones of high vertical gradients in the 

subsurface near the proposed disposal units may significantly effect radionuclide transport 

times. 

It is also not clear why measurement techniques circumventing difficulties associated with 

slowly stabilizing wells have not been employed in wells deemed to be in the second class; 

apparently this class of wells was defined by the Applicant some time ago. 

49. Comment: Please provide information requested. It is not clear if the Applicant is 

stating that none of the wells in the nine nested pairs of wells in the 225-ft zone (18 wells) 

exhibited stabilized water levels, or if at each location of a nested well pair no more than 

one well exhibited a stabilized water level. In either case the Applicant has apparently 

provided no further explanation of the observed water levels in terms of subsurface 

structure between the nested well locations and locations of wells that did exhibit stabilized 

water levels. In other words, the partitioning of the available wells in two classes may serve 

as a tool for further site characterization. 

50. Comment: Please provide information requested. The Applicant has stated that “the 

conceptual model of this site does not necessarily require negligible vertical flow in any of 

the subsurface red bed units, rather it considers a hydrodynamic system in equilibrium 

characterized by very slow ground water movements.” The TCEQ considers a rational 

estimate of the actual vertical flow throughout the subsurface, regardless of its direction 

and magnitude, to be a component of a fully developed conceptual model. Such flow, if 

discernable, can help determine which transport mechanisms would be necessary to carry 

radionuclides into the 225-ft zone. Upward flow out of that zone would indicate that 

downward diffusive transport might be necessary to carry radionuclides from a disposal 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 41 of 51

unit into that zone. Also, such flow, if discernable, in conjunction with a known location of 

the water table, once determined, may provide further information about the subsurface 

flow dynamics. For instance, the finding of a water table above the potentiometric surface 

of the 225-ft zone in conjunction with vertical upward flow from that zone would 

necessarily be interpreted either as a contradiction or as an indication that the subsurface 

flow was more complicated than initially indicated. 





52. Comment: Please provide information requested. The Applicant states that new field 

work involving the use of environmental tracers has been undertaken. However, the NRC 

citation in the TNOD1 comment refers to the necessity of using tracers in unsaturated 

vadose zone materials in order to study general transport processes and rates within these 

materials, not to the sole use of tracers in age-dating of waters infiltrating vertically 

downward from the ground surface after collecting in playas. 









55. Comment: The TCEQ is concerned that the Applicant has underestimated 

radionuclide rates of travel. Statistical estimators have been employed to determine 

representative hydraulic conductivity values used in various radionuclide transport 

calculations. There is needed future explanation of statistical procedures used for 

determining a “representative” hydraulic conductivity from a finite set of available 

conductivity measurements. 

The statement is often made that many properties of, or chemicals dispersed in, 

environmental media are “log-normally distributed.” From a formal point of view, since 

the log-normal probability density function (pdf) exhibits variate values arbitrarily large, 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 42 of 51

no physical property, or chemical concentration, can be log-normally distributed. A 

physical property or concentration of a chemical must have a finite upper bound. A 

similar comment can be made regarding the normal pdf. 

Second, referring to “flow parallel to bedding” and quoting Domenico and Schwartz, the 

Applicant states “for log-normally distributed hydraulic conductivity data and two 

dimensional uniform flow, the average hydraulic conductivity is exactly equal to the 

geometric mean.” However, in the TOUGH2 computations, the Applicant appears to 

consider this statement supportive of the use of the geometric mean in their modeling of a 

one-dimensional vertical flow, while the statement appears to address only twodimensional, 

horizontal, flow. 

Third, it is not clear what “average conductivity” is being referenced. Assume that 

“average conductivity” refers to the mean of the log-normal distribution. Then it is 

important to note that as a statistical estimator, the geometric mean of a finite set of 

realizations from a log-normal probability density function (pdf) is an unbiased estimator 

of the median of that log-normal pdf, not its mean. Thus, under the stated assumption, the 

geometric mean is, at best, a biased estimator of that mean so that it would be difficult to 

reconcile its description as “exactly equal” to the “average.” Since, for a log-normal pdf the 

median is always smaller than the mean, the geometric mean, as an estimator of the mean 

of the pdf, is biased low. Furthermore, since for any finite set of realization, the harmonic 

mean determined from this set is always less than the geometric mean, the harmonic mean, 

as an estimator of the mean of the pdf, exhibits an even greater bias than the geometric 

mean. 

On the other hand, while the arithmetic mean of the finite set of realizations is an unbiased 

estimator of the mean of the log-normal pdf, it is not the minimum variance unbiased 

(MVU) estimator. Gilbert discusses the MVU of the mean of a log-normal pdf. 2 

Furthermore, the geometric mean determined from the finite set of realizations is a single 

realization of a statistic having its own sampling distribution. Thus, a single realization of 

that statistic (which is all the Applicant has in hand) need not be “close” to the distribution 

parameter being estimated via its use. Consequently, confidence intervals are often used as 

estimators of distribution parameters, so that not only is the “point” estimate of the 

parameter made available but probability statements regarding a likely interval of values 

including that parameter are possible. Gilbert also discusses the construction of a 

2 

“Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, “ R.O. Gilbert. 1987. 

Chapter 13, “Characterizing Lognormal Distributions.” 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 43 of 51

confidence interval for the mean of a log-normal distribution. 3 

Thus, the quoted statement from Domenico and Schwartz equating the geometric mean 

with the “average” hydraulic conductivity appears to be referring to an “effective” or 

“equivalent” hydraulic conductivity characteristic of the horizontal flow of water in a 

horizontal system of layered homogeneous, isotropic porous media, each subject to 

identical horizontal gradients. It is not clear how such a situation encapsulates the 

situation at the proposed site. This also seems to be indicated in the Applicant’s reference 

to Freeze and Cherry (1979). This reference derives an “equivalent” hydraulic 

conductivity for vertical, one-dimensional flow, in a series of horizontally layered, 

isotropic, homogeneous, saturated porous media. Since this reference also treats the 

“equivalent hydraulic conductivity” of horizontal flow in that same layered media (with 

identical horizontal gradients in each layer) it is not clear, if the reference to Domenico and 

Schwartz is a treatment of that same problem, why a single reference to Freeze and Cherry 

was not sufficient. On the other hand, if Domenico and Schwartz are addressing some third 

aquifer configuration, it is requested that the Applicant describe in more detail that 

configuration. 

Fourth, the Applicant refers to the often cited statement in Freeze and Cherry that 

“hydraulic conductivity is usually considered as log-normally distributed in geologic 

media.” The referenced discussion in Freeze and Cherry implies that it is a formation that 

can be considered to be characterized by a log-normal pdf. However, the spatial scale of 

“formations” expected to exhibit a log-normal distribution of hydraulic conductivity is not 

clear, nor can it be made clear. Hydraulic conductivity itself, can only be defined on a 

geostatistical support and, in reality, within those spatial domains deemed to be occupied 

by the separate “layers” making up a designated “formation,” variations in hydraulic 

conductivity will be found to exist, at some spatial scale. This observation implies that 

while the idealized problems referenced by the Applicant involving “equivalent” hydraulic 

conductivities may have a useful application in water supply problems, solutions to such 

problems are less applicable to considerations of contaminant transport and contaminant 

travel times. 

To say the above in a different way: the referenced situations might be described as zero 

dimensional. Two geometrically equivalent formations with identical univariate pdfs 

characterizing the distribution of hydraulic conductivities conceptualized to exist at each 

spatial location within them, will almost certainly be unable to manifest identical 

subsurface flow fields. It is improbable that the spatial variation of hydraulic conductivity 

within each of these formations will be identical, despite the characterization of the 

hydraulic conductivity fields within them by identical, univariate pdfs. Thus, even if all 

3 Ibid. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 44 of 51

differences in any other parameters affecting contaminant transport in each of the 

formations are ignored, the contaminant transport in the two formations will not be 

identical. Furthermore, the differences in the representative elemental volumes (REVs) 

necessary to define the hydraulic conductivity in each of the formations are also likely to be 

physically significant. Thus, even assuming the ideal existence of two geometrically 

equivalent formations, with identical spatial variations in identical univariately distributed 

hydraulic conductivities, one could not expect the same spatial or temporal distributions of 

transported contaminants. Such observations lead to alternative mathematical modelings 

of fluid flow and contaminant transport; approaches based on chaos theory, fractals, and 

geostatistics, not the conventional modeling of such phenomenon based on the principles of 

continuum mechanics. Such observations must condition any evaluation of the Applicant’s 

response. 

Requested Action: Please provide information requested. Please address specific concerns 

regarding underestimation of radionuclide rates of travel 



















Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 45 of 51











63. New Comment: Federal Regulations in 10 CFR §61.50(7) state, “The disposal site must 

provide sufficient depth to the water table that ground water intrusion, perennial or otherwise, 

into the waste will not occur. The Commission will consider an exception to this requirement to 

allow disposal below the water table if it can be conclusively shown that disposal site 

characteristics will result in molecular diffusion being the predominant means of radionuclide 

movement and the rate of movement will result in the performance objectives of subpart C of 

this part being met. In no case will waste disposal be permitted in the zone of fluctuation of the 

water table.” Additionally, federal guidance on low-level waste disposal in NUREG-0902, Site 

Suitability, Selection, and Characterization, states on page 7 that “The bottoms of the disposal 

units must be, at all times, above the saturated zone in order to limit the water contacting the 

wastes...” 

Figure 6.6-3a in Volume 3A shows the water table intersecting the northeast corner of the FWF 

at the zero-thickness boundary of OAG saturation. Also, piezometer well TP-04 located 

approximately 1,700 feet northeast of the northeast corner of the FWF has shown at least a 5-foot 

fluctuation between December 2003/January 2004 and whenever groundwater levels were 

measured for Figure 6.6-3a (measurement date not given). 


• If the water table intersects the upper northeast corner of the FWF, then ground water 

intrusion into the waste is a real possibility. Please demonstrate how the proposed FWF 

meets the requirement in the regulations calling for sufficient depth to the water table to 

preclude ground water intrusion into the waste. 

• If the northeast corner of the FWF is at or below the water table, and if the predominant 

movement of radionuclides at the proposed facilities is advection, please demonstrate 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 46 of 51

how the proposed FWF and CWF meet the requirement in the regulations where it states 

that an exception to disposal below the water table is where diffusive radionuclide 

movement is a characteristic of the disposal site. 

• If the water table at TP-04 has fluctuated at least 5 feet upward in less than 2 years, then 

please demonstrate how the water table at the northeast corner of the FWF is not in this 

same zone of fluctuation. 

64. New Comment: Federal Guidance in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 

4.18, Standard Format and Content of Environmental Reports for Near-surface Disposal of 

Radioactive Waste, states on p. 4.18-29: “Measurements of water table and soil moisture should 

be sufficient to estimate the expected variations in [baseline water quality parameters] 

throughout the life of the facility and to provide a reasonably accurate map of the ground-water 

table.” In order to more fully characterize the water table, especially the water table as it exists in 

the OAG, it appears that the Applicant would need to conduct additional investigation south of 

the FWF and CWF. There is essentially no information south of the landfills concerning the 

OAG saturation (refer to Volume 3A, Figure 6.6-3a). 

Requested Action: Please provide an accurate map of the water table, including definitive 

information on the water table as it exists in the OAG south of the RCRA landfill and the 

proposed FWF and CWF. 


Identify the known natural resources at the site, whose exploitation could result in 

inadvertent intrusion into the wastes after removal of active institutional control. [30 TAC 

§336.708(a)(4)] 


2. Comment: The site is located within one of the largest petroleum provinces in North 

America, has at least one operating well onsite, and includes multiple abandoned wells. 

Although the site is within the Central Basin Platform, the site is adjacent to multiple oil fields. 

The oil industry has a long history of re-exploring areas based on new concepts, new 

technologies, or higher commodity prices. Inadvertent intrusion due to future petroleum 

exploration appears to be dismissed in Volume 1, page 2-54. 

Requested Action: Please discuss inadvertent intrusion related to exploration and 

development of oil and gas for release scenarios post institutional control. The eventual 

acquisition of mineral rights (as required), may preclude exploration and development of 

oil and gas during the period of institutional control. Mineral rights may not, however, 

preclude this activity as a viable intruder scenario after institutional control. The site 

clearly lies in a region of long-term exploration interest; owning the mineral rights may 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 47 of 51

have little or no value 500, 1,000, or more years in the future. 


Demonstrate that the selected disposal site avoids areas that have known natural resources 

which, if exploited, would result in failure to meet the performance objectives of 30 TAC 

§336.723. [30 TAC §336.728(c)] 

1. Comment: The application states in Volume 1, page 2-55 that “There are currently no 

incentives, nor are there expected to be in the future, for the exploitation of … oil and gas… at 

the Site.” Considering that the site is located within the Permian Basin, “the most prolific oilproducing 

province in U.S. history” (BEG, 2005, Oil and Gas Map of Texas), commercial oil 

and gas has been or is being produced on the WCS property, there exists a very large field 

(Fullerton), located approximately 12 to15 miles to the east, and because of the numerous 

examples of companies going back to mature areas with new technologies and concepts, it is 

unlikely that there is a reasonable and conservative expectation that no one in the future would 

ever want to drill a well at the site. 

Requested Action: The assertion that there are not likely to be incentives to exploit 

petroleum resources at the site does not seem supportable. Please refer to our response in 

Comment 2 of Section 2.8.1, above and address this issue. 


Describe a pre-operational monitoring program to provide basic environmental data on 

the disposal site’s characteristics. For those characteristics that are subject to seasonal 

variation, data must cover at least a 12-month period. [30 TAC §336.731(a)] 


2. Comment: The application states on pages 2-46 and 2-48 of Volume 1 that the background 

“TLD data showed results within expected ranges for the region.” The application makes similar 

statements for TLD and vegetation data on page 2-58 of Volume 1, and for soil, vegetation, 

biota, TLD, and air samples on page 2-60 of Volume 1, but in no case does it mention what these 

“expected ranges” of background concentration are. 

Requested Action: The Applicant did not provide the expected background ranges for the 

region or provide a source for such data. Instead, the Applicant referred to its own 

internally-collected data as being background data falling within expected ranges for the 

region. Please discuss what background ranges of soil, vegetation, biota, TLD, ground 

water, surface water, and air monitoring results would be expected for the region and the 

sources of this information. 


Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 48 of 51


5. Comment: Federal guidance (NUREG-1200, SRP 2.9, page 2.9-8) suggests that the 

description for a preoperational monitoring program “should include a justification for,” among 

other things, (1) “the selection of specific media to be monitored;” (2) “the choice of sampling 

locations (onsite as well as offsite);” and (3) “depth and elevation of sampling points;” The 

application did not offer this information. 

Requested Action: The Applicant’s response included only general information. Please 

provide a response addressing the justification for specific sampling locations, which are a 

finite set, and the respective depth and elevation of each sampling points. 


7. Comment: Preoperational monitoring location 8 is given in Volume 1, Table 2.10.1-1 as 

“7D-well,” however, the well doesn’t appear to be shown on Volume 3, Figure 6.5-1, “Boring 

Locations,” or Volume 3, Figure 6.5-1A, “Monitor Wells and Piezometers.” 

Requested Action: Table 2.10.1-1 was not revised to replace erroneous designation “7Dwell” 

with “11D,” as stated in the response. Please revise accordingly. 


9. Comment: Preoperational monitoring location “STK-2-well” is given in Volume 1, Table 

2.10.1-1, “WCS background environmental sample locations,” however, the well doesn’t appear 

to be shown on Volume 1, Figure 2.10.1-1, “Background Monitoring Locations,” Volume 3, 

Figure 6.5-1, “Boring Locations,” or Volume 3, Figure 6.5-1A, “Monitor Wells and 

Piezometers.” 

Requested Action: The station ID of former well “STK-2-well” has not been changed to 

“RH” in Table 2.10.1-1, as stated. Please revise accordingly. 





14. Comment: Volume 1, Table 2.10.1-3, “WCS background environmental direct radiation 

monitoring data,” includes 18 listings of “ND,” an acronym most commonly used to convey 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 49 of 51

“non-detect,” but which in this instance is said to mean “TLD missing,” (referring to the 

thermoluminescent dosimeters). 

Requested Action: The Applicant did not modify the use of “ND” in Table 2.10.1-3, as 

stated. Please revise accordingly. 




18. Comment: Regarding Volume 3, Figure 6.6-11: “Groundwater Monitoring Locations”: 

Using the downgradient flow direction for the 225-foot sandstone indicated in Volume 3 on 

Figures 6.6-4 and 6.6-5, the four well locations indicated as “upgradient” appear to be more 

properly described as “cross-gradient.” These wells do not appear to be upgradient of the 

existing and proposed RCRA downgradient wells, or upgradient of the proposed FWF and CWF. 

Also, if the given dimensions of the proposed disposal units are an indication of the span of the 

downgradient well systems used to monitor them, then it appears that the wells indicated as 

“upgradient” may be spatially clustered. Spatial variations in the monitored background 

constituents manifested only at larger scales may not be discernable within this upgradient 

“cluster,” so that measurements in the downgradient wells, when compared to upgradient 

measurements, may be misinterpreted. 

Note that if the distance between the “upgradient” wells is relatively small compared to the 

spatial scale at which significant spatio-temporal variations in natural conditions occur, then the 

“upgradient” wells may also be considered, in a sense, “redundant,” and a more dispersed set of 

wells might result in obtaining more information for the same monitoring effort. 

Because the proposed set of upgradient wells are located outside the disposal site boundaries, it 

is questionable whether the post-closure monitoring program would be “operational for 

implementation by the custodial agency,” as required in 30 TAC §336.721(4). This may 

complicate transfer of the license to the custodial agency following closure and the period of 

post-closure observation and maintenance (30 TAC §336.721). 

Requested Action: Please refer to our comments on the proposed groundwater monitoring 

system in Section 8.1.2, comment number 3. Please review the proposed upgradient 

groundwater monitoring system and propose within the disposal site boundary a sufficient 

number of upgradient monitoring wells in the 225-foot sandstone for the FWF and CWF based 

on flowlines that intersect the projections of the FWF and CWF. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 50 of 51





23. Comment: Some of the environmental monitoring procedures in Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5 

refer to a chain-of-custody form, but we were unable to locate one within the application. 

Requested Action: The Applicant refers to Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, OP-7.0, Attachment 

I for a chain-of-custody form. Attachment I is listed in the Table of Contents for OP-7.0 as 

“Environmental Sample Shipping” and no chain-of-custody form is provided. Please 

provide a copy of a chain-of-custody form that is in use or intended to be used for environmental 

sample collection at the site. 

24. New Comment: Federal guidance on low-level waste disposal in NUREG-0902, Site 

Suitability, Selection, and Characterization, states on page 17, “At arid sites, [NRC] staff 

considers the movement of soil moisture and vapor to be the most significant pathway for 

migration of radionuclides.” Federal guidance in NUREG-1388, Environmental Monitoring of 

Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, recommends on page 7 that “The vadose 

(unsaturated) zone in which contaminants could migrate should be monitored to detect any 

migration of waste from the disposal unit before it reaches the saturated zone.” It remains 

unclear to us whether the Applicant intends to monitor the vadose zone. 

Requested Action: Please discuss the Applicant’s plans for vadose zone monitoring at the 

site, including the any rationale for monitoring and the associated plans and procedures. 

Attachment 2 


1/30/2006 Page 51 of 51

Attachment 3 



Design 


Describe the principal design criteria and their relationship to the performance objectives 

of 30 TAC §336.723. 


2. Overall Comment: The Applicant has undertaken new field work or is conducting 

additional analyses related to this comment. Additional materials requiring technical 

review are to be submitted. Specifically, the Applicant has indicated that tank design and 

specifications are currently under development by specialists and consultants to the 

Applicant. 

Requested Action: Please submit relevant information based on new field work and/or 

additional analyses. 

3. Comment: The Applicant has undertaken new field work or is conducting additional 

analyses related to this comment. Additional materials requiring technical review are to be 

submitted. Specifically, the Applicant has indicated that tank design and specifications are 

currently under development by specialists and consultants to the Applicant. 



4. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Appendix 3.2 lists 

both API 620 and API 650 as standards applicable to tanks, however Appendix 3.0-3.7 

(Water Tank (Leachate) Concrete Footing Design) indicates only API 650 will be used in 

the design of the tanks. Also, our previous request for specificity in versions and dates of 

applicable standards and sections within those standards was not addressed. 

5. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Previous request for 

evidence supporting applicability of API standards to design of tanks containing 

radionuclides was not directly addressed. The Applicant’s response to Comment 6 only 

indirectly addresses this request. 

6. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. See Comment 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 25

immediately above. Also, the Applicant’s TNOD1 response mentions that a hazard 

categorization assessment was performed on the bulk waste inventory to demonstrate that 

concentrations of radionuclides that may collect in the leachate tanks do not require safety 

analysis per DOE-STD-1027-92, Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques 

for Compliance with DOE Order 480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports. This reference 

refers to concentrations which would have to be considered a hazard due to an accidental 

release and is not meant to be used to determine as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) 

design requirements as the TCEQ comment requests. An ALARA design review is needed 

to determine what the exposure rates would be at various distances from the tank so that 

the need for shielding, remote sampling or handling stations, and other ALARA dose 

reduction methods can be determined and added to the system design. This is needed to 

protect operators who conduct sampling, perform maintenance on, or remove liquids from 

the leachate collection tanks. 

The calculations provided in Vol. 8B, Appendix 3.0-2.27, Hazard Categorization 

Determination, provide the first step in the ALARA design review by determining the 

potential curie content of the leachate in the tank. However, not only should radionuclides 

be considered from the bulk waste but from all waste containers in the compact site. This 

worst-case situation should be considered where a certain percentage of failed waste 

containers would be assumed to be leaking to the leachate collection system. MicroShield 

calculations should be performed to determine the dose rate per distance from the tank 

and appropriate ALARA dose reduction measures, then identified and incorporated into 

the design of the system. Please see TNOD2 in Attachment 5, Section 5.5.2, Comment 12, 

which requires that ALARA design reviews be performed for the leachate collection 

system, leak detection system, and the shielding and ventilation systems required in the 

new compact and separate federal staging, demurrage, and decontamination buildings. 

7. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. As mentioned in 

Comment 5 above, the question regarding applicability of API or AWWA standards to 

tanks storing liquids containing radionuclides was not answered directly. The Applicant’s 

response refers to revisions in Appendix 3.0-1 but not specifically to expected revisions in 

Appendix 3.0-3.7. Also, requested changes to Volume 8, Appendix 3.0-1, regarding 

incorrect statements about tank foundations dimensions were not completed. 

8. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Previous request for 

rationale supporting the choice of wind speeds (base wind speed, tornado wind speed) 

apparently utilized in Appendix 3.0-3.7 (Water Tank (Leachate) Concrete Footing Design) 

was not addressed. 

9. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Previous request was 

for differentiation between various metrics of seismic conditions mentioned within the 

application, including use of “Seismic Zone Coefficient” (with a value of “1,” as indicated 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 25

in Appendix E of API 650). Also, in the revised Appendix 3.0-3.7, in the table with heading 

“Parameters, Symbols, and Units,” the “Seismic Zone Coefficient” is indicated as having a 

value of “.075.” This is inconsistent with what was done previously. 



12. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Please address 

individual questions. For example, it is requested that the Applicant specifically answer 

the TNOD1 request for comment on tolerances applicable to tank foundation design. 

13. Comment: This comment was answered in TNOD1 response in that revised Appendix 

3.0-3.7 includes consideration of 8-inch concrete slab connected interiorly to ring wall. 

However, the revised appendix does not appear to address the existence of a concrete slab 

exterior to the ring wall, but one connected to it. 

14. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The Applicant was 

requested to provide a technical reference describing the procedure utilized in Appendix 

3.0-3.7 to design the ring wall foundation, or to state explicitly whether or not the 

procedure was developed by the Applicant solely on the basis of first principles. The 

design and analysis in the revised appendix proceeds without comment on the requested 

information. 


16. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Revised Appendix 

3.0-3.7 does not appear to describe components contributing to 14.14 kip loading attributed 

to “Equip & Misc.” 


18. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The requested 

justification of application of moment (intended to satisfy tank design procedures of API) 

to ring wall foundation was not found in information cited by the Applicant in its response. 

19. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The requested 

justification for a safety factor of 1.5 for structural stability relative to overturning was not 

given. 

20. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The specific question 

asked in the TNOD1 comment was not answered in materials referenced by the Applicant 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 25

in its response. 


regarding the use of a “factor of 0.8” is not addressed in revised Appendix 3.0-3.7, as 

suggested in Applicant’s response to the TNOD1 comment. If this factor is not utilized in 

the revised procedures, the Applicant should justify that absence. 


regarding the use of extrapolation is not addressed in revised Appendix 3.0-3.7, as 

suggested in the Applicant’s response to TNOD1. 


24. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. In its response to 

Comment 3, the Applicant indicated that the tank design process was still to be completed. 

However, the revised Appendix 3.0-3.7 still contains an analysis of a safety factor relative 

to an overturning moment for the storage tanks. The title of Appendix 3.0-3.7 indicates 

that it concerns the design of the tank foundations, not the tanks themselves. Previous 

TCEQ questions concerning the applicability of API procedures for the design of tanks to 

the design of foundations for those tanks is still unaddressed. Also, the question of whether 

or not the API procedure is applicable to anchored tanks has apparently not been 

addressed. 


26. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. It does not appear 

that eccentricities applied to the ring wall foundation have been explicitly addressed in the 

revised Appendix 3.0-3.7. 

27. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Apparent treatment 

of ring wall footing as rectangular footing or strip footing is not explicitly addressed in 

revised Appendix 3.0-3.7. 

28. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. If, in the revised 

Appendix 3.0-3.7, the Applicant has addressed the Requested Action associated with this 

TNOD1 comment, the Applicant should indicate where, in that appendix, the Requested 

Action is explicitly considered. 

29. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The Applicant has 

not explained why a sufficient safety factor relative to a bearing capacity failure necessarily 

precludes an analysis of the settlement of the proposed design. Furthermore, the Applicant 

merely states that lateral sliding of the ring wall footing will not occur. It is not clear what 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 25

evidence is available to support this statement. 


31. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. From the sketch in 

Appendix 3.0-3.7, it appears that the load applied to the ring wall footing by the storage 

tank will have a resultant always inside of the circle defining the locus of all ring wall crosssection 

area centroids. If so, that resultant would appear to produce a moment (more 

properly, a torque), at every location along the circumference of the ring wall, in the 

direction of that circle. The Applicant has addressed this situation by stating only that 

there will be no eccentricity. 



34. New Comment: Section (2) (Design Criteria and calculation basis) in the revised Appendix 

3.0-3.7 gives a value of 1.5, instead of 1.0 for the specific gravity of water. 

Requested Action: Please address this inconsistency. 


Demonstrate that the disposal facility is designed to complement and improve, where 

appropriate, the ability of the disposal site’s natural characteristics to assure that the 

performance objectives of 30 TAC §336.723 will be met. 

1. Comment: When referring to the caliche in the upper OAG, Volume 1A, Section 3, page 3- 

19 states that its “density and durability serve as a natural concrete barrier that is technologically 

superior to man-made reinforced concrete for the purpose of intruder protection.” There are 

three issues with this statement. 

• The application makes no reference to a technical comparison of the density and 

durability of the caliche to those same properties of reinforced concrete. 

• Durability is a function of several properties (hardness, permeability, strength, etc.). 

Regarding intruder protection, it would appear that strength and permeability would have 

an influence on the durability of these materials. However, the application does not 

quantify the term “durability” or state how it applies to intruder protection. 

• Because reinforced concrete is a composite material, any comparison to reinforced 

concrete should account for its two components, concrete and steel, and their relative 

interaction and configuration. As an example, a comparison to the strength of reinforced 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 5 of 25

concrete should account for both the tensile (the steel component) and compressive (the 

concrete component) strength of its components. 

The TNOD1 comment referred to the Applicant’s comparison of the natural caliche to 

reinforced concrete. The Applicant has revised its statement to remove any comparisons to 

reinforced concrete, but has replaced this with another comparison. 

Requested Action: The revised statement compares the caliche to “dense” materials which 

would “ensure that a constructor. . . will be unable to transport or handle them without 

heavy equipment.” Please provide data to substantiate these claims. 






analyses related to this TNOD1 comment. The Applicant has indicated that yet-to-be 

submitted geomechanical modeling will supercede previously submitted engineering 

calculations as the basis for the regulatory determination of whether the proposed design 

has complemented, or improved, the site’s natural characteristics, to assure that the 

performance objectives of 30 TAC §336.723 will be met. However, Appendix 5.4.4 

(Comparison of Compacted Clay Containment Structure to One Made of Reinforced 

Concrete), submitted in response to this comment contains information indicating that, 

following the excavation and filling of the proposed disposal units, the in-situ stresses will 

exceed those present prior to excavation. If true, then this might serve as an example of 

how the proposed design did not enhance or complement one of the natural characteristics 

of the site, i.e., the initial geostatic stress field. Also, if true, it is not clear how any 

subsequent geomechanical modeling will lead to a different conclusion. 



4. New Comment: 30 TAC §336.723 makes reference to 30 TAC §336.727, which requires 

that the facilities be “sited, designed, used, operated, and closed to achieve long-term stability of 

the disposal site...” While the Applicant has made comments about long-term stability, it is still 

unclear whether a determination can be made when differential settlement and stream 

morphology have yet to be adequately addressed. Also, pedogenesis and climate change have 

not been discussed in relation to long-term stability of the cover. 

Requested Action: Please evaluate long-term stability of the engineered cover in relation to the 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 6 of 25

issues noted above. Refer to the Department of Energy’s “Growing a 1,000-Year Landfill 

Cover” by Jody Waugh, which provides methods to determine long-term stability. This 

publication recommends a coupling of monitoring, modeling, and analog studies to produce 

credible long-term performance projections. 


Describe the design features of the land disposal facility and the disposal units. For nearsurface 

disposal the description shall include those design features related to structural 

stability of backfill and wastes. [30 TAC §336.707 (4)]. 

1. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. After technical 

review, Appendix 5.4.4 (Comparison of Compacted Clay Containment Structure to One 

Made of Reinforced Concrete) submitted by the Applicant in response to this comment has 

been determined to be insufficient to demonstrate that the proposed engineering barrier of 

compacted Red Bed Clay is constructed of materials “technologically equivalent or 

superior” to a barrier made of reinforced concrete, as required in 30 TAC §336.730(b)(1). 

For further clarification of deficiencies in Appendix 5.4.4, please see Attachment 5, Section 

5.4.4.1, New Comment 1. 





3. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Also, please refer to 

Comment 12 below. 


5. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The TNOD1 comment 

requested that the Applicant comment upon possible temporal differences in effective 

service life of the two different canister designs. This issue was not addressed in the 

Applicant’s response. 



8. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The Applicant is 

currently in the process of determining the location of the water table relative to the 

proposed disposal units. It remains a possibility that the water table might be above the 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 7 of 25

ase of the proposed disposal units, particularly the FWF disposal unit. Please describe 

how such a situation might alter the response given to this comment, or when the precise 

location of the water table and its variable depth across the proposed site becomes known, 

please revise this response to reflect the completed site characterization. 

9. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The Applicant’s 

response states that “WCS will use cohesionless soil as recommend [sic] in NUREG 1200- 

SRP 4.3-Appendix A to fill voids between canisters in the disposal units.” The Applicant 

then cites a Technical Specification (for imported materials) found in Appendix 4.2.3 

(Technical Specification) as describing the properties of the flowable sand to be used as fill 

around the canisters. Please explicitly state whether or not this cited technical specification 

satisfies the recommendations of SRP 4.3-A. If not, please justify any differences. 

10. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The Applicant was 

asked to justify the apparent absence of an “early demonstration” or “field testing” related 

to grout used as a fill material between waste containers, as discussed in NUREG-1200 SRP 

4.3-A. The Applicant’s response consists of a generic description of the behavior of grout 

when poured, in liquid form, into any rigid container. Nonetheless, SRP 4.3-A requires an 

“early demonstration” or “field testing.” 

11. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The Applicant’s 

response partially relies on information that is not yet available. The structural stability 

of the “soil-like” bulk waste the Applicant proposes to place between canister stacks in the 

proposed FWF disposal unit may be given preliminary and partial support from preplacement 

engineering testing, however, the final determination of the stability of these 

materials can only be made after the proposed FLAC calculations have been completed 

and carefully examined. If, on this basis, the proposed FWF disposal unit is judged to not 

demonstrate long-term structural stability, it is possible that the source of this failure could 

be assigned to the bulk waste disposed within the proposed disposal unit. The Applicant’s 

comments do not reflect this possibility. 

The Applicant argues that “soil- like” bulk waste, though intended to placed between 

reinforced concrete waste canisters, be exempted from requirements that voids in fill 

materials be minimized. On the other hand, it is apparent that the larger the total amount 

of void space (regardless of which materials with voids are contributing to this total 

amount) contained within a proposed disposal unit, the greater potential there is for 

volume changes during the lifetime of the proposed unit. It is apparent that given an 

otherwise acceptable void ratio for all porous media within a proposed disposal unit, the 

larger total volume of these porous media, the larger the overall volume changes in these 

media and hence, the larger potential for significant volume changes relative to the longterm 

structural stability. These volume changes can potentially contribute significantly to 

a deterioration in the long-term structural stability of a proposed disposal unit. 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 8 of 25

Two strategies for limiting such volume changes are apparent: (1) minimizing the voids in 

all porous materials placed in the disposal units; and (2) minimizing the total volume of 

such materials. Application of both strategies would minimize the potential for a 

deterioration of the long-term structural stability in a proposed disposal unit due to volume 

changes. 

The Applicant’s proposal utilizes only the first on these strategies, and thus can be viewed 

as not minimizing the potential for a deterioration of long-term structural stability due to 

volume changes. Placement of the bulk waste in reinforced concrete canisters within the 

proposed disposal unit would constitute an effective implementation of the second strategy. 

In Appendix 5.4.4 (Comparison of Compacted Clay Containment Structure to One Made 

of Reinforced Concrete), Paragraph 3.1 (Complementing/Enhancing Natural Site 

Characteristics) the Applicant argues that “analysis to satisfy compatibility, arching, 

tension, and stress reduction ratios in plastic media is difficult and often controversial.” 

The TCEQ notes that this argument can be applied to the forthcoming FLAC analyses of 

the displacement, stress, and strain fields within the proposed waste containment 

structures and their contents. Such computational studies must be considered a necessary 

support to any judgement regarding the long-term structural stability of the proposed 

disposal units. However, because such computations, as indicated by the Applicant, can 

only be approximations to the actual physical behavior of the proposed units, engineering 

design measures thought to minimize the potential volume changes in the contained waste 

would seemingly allow a more confident interpretation of what such computations are 

indicating about the long-term structural stability of the proposed disposal unit. 

Requested Action: Please address the considerations presented here and also address any 

operational considerations for the proposed placement of bulk waste, including worker 

dose and ALARA considerations. 


responded to this comment by referencing responses to previous comments 3 and 5. The 

TCEQ does not consider these responses to be sufficient. The Applicant has been asked to 

consider the possibility of a single rectangular reinforced concrete canister design, properly 

proportioned to contain both standard sized cylindrical waste containers with a higher 

“disposal efficiency” than that characterizing the current cylindrical canisters, and with 

sufficient volume to also efficiently contain standard rectangular waste packages and nonstandard 

configurations of waste materials. The design goal would be to generate a 

“disposal efficiency” greater than the average efficiency characterizing the proposed use of 

two different shapes and sizes of canisters. 

The rectangular cannister design, resulting in an improved “disposal efficiency,” would 

also allow for a higher “packing factor,” (as defined in the TNOD1 comment) since 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 9 of 25

ectangular stacks of canisters can be arranged to reduce inter-canister volumes (relative 

to juxtaposed rectangular and cylindrical canisters, as proposed) which in turn would 

minimize the volume of needed fill with associated void spaces and potential for volume 

changes. Such a uniform grid of stacked, equal sized, rectangular canisters might also 

result in a more efficient and accurate method for placing and retrieving specific waste 

containers or canisters, if and when necessary. 

The Applicant has stated that “both cylindrical and rectangular canisters have been 

designed” to satisfy several requirements. The claim that the use of both of these canister 

designs will “minimize voids between waste containers in the disposal unit” seems 

unsupportable considering the improved “packing factor” inherent in an array of 

properly-sized rectangular canisters. The Applicant’s claim that the use of dual-canister 

designs will result in containment of waste “without loss of structural stability” cannot be 

an exclusive claim. It seems likely that the same claim could be made for a disposal plan 

utilizing a properly considered single-canister design. Moreover, while the Applicant’s 

claim regarding canister structural stability might characterize the results of engineering 

analysis performed on each separate canister, it is not clear how that claim can be extended 

to the behavior of both canister designs, interacting with each other, the fill materials, the 

embedded bulk waste, and the proposed compacted clay liner, under both static and 

dynamic service conditions. The computational simulations of that aspect of the canister 

structural stability have not yet been completed. 

Requested Action: Please explain how the proposed dual-sized canister design satisfies the 

requirement that the void ratio of the materials within the waste containment structures 

has been minimized. 

13. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. See comment 

immediately above. 









Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 10 of 25




Requested Action Please submit relevant information based on new field work and/or 


18. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Please note that the 

exact location of the water table at the proposed disposal site has not yet been identified, 

the structural stability of the proposed disposal units have not yet been demonstrated, and 

a decision whether the required engineering barriers will be constructed of reinforced 

concrete or of a material “technologically equivalent or superior” to reinforced concrete 

has not yet been made. 


analyses related to this TNOD1 comment. Also, this response to this comment states that 

“The canisters in the CWF will be stacked no more than 5 layers.” This statement is 

inconsistent with the description of the CWF canister stacks given in the revised Appendix 

3.0-1 (WCS LLRW Disposal Engineering Report) wherein the Applicant states “the CWF 

canister array will be four layers high when complete.” 


additional analyses. Please clarify the inconsistency regarding the exact number of 

canisters in a canister stack in the CWF disposal unit. 

20. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Note that the 

statements in Applicant’s response regarding absence of sufficient water in disposal units 

to affect chemical degradation of reinforced concrete canisters may require alteration 

when current field investigations to locate depth to the water table at the proposed disposal 

site are completed. Thus, it is requested that the Applicant modify its response to this 

TNOD1 comment, as necessary. Also, please note that the TCEQ has not yet obtained 

access to the SAP2000 User’s Manual (see Comment 30 below), nor have previously 

contemplated conversations between the Applicant and the TCEQ regarding the SAP2000 

computations been held. Until these steps have been undertaken, a technical review of 

related issues remains incomplete. 

21. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The Applicant states 

that “due to the design of the LLRW disposal facilities, with subsurface waste isolation 

from non-engineered soils/materials, and the fact that the long-term conditions will be dry, 

in situ soil conditions do not warrant these additional tests for the concrete canisters.” As 

discussed elsewhere in this TNOD2 (for instance, see Comment 18, above), the Applicant is 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 11 of 25

still conducting field work at the proposed site to locate the depth to the water table. Thus, 

any engineering or conceptual analysis by the Applicant, based on dry conditions may be in 

need of reevaluation when the field work is completed. Also, since at this date the TCEQ 

considers the requirements of 30 TAC §336.730 (b) (1) not yet satisfied, the Applicant’s 

comments regarding “non-engineered soils/materials,” need to be reevaluated. 

22. Comment: The “strength reduction” factors incorporated into the ACI design 

procedures, and cited by the Applicant, are based on probabilistic analysis. “The 

resistance and load factors in the ACI Code were based on a statistical model which 

assumed that if there a 1/1000 chance of an “overload” and a 1/100 chance of 

“understrength,” the chance that an “overload” and an “understrength” would occur 

simultaneously is 1/1000 x 1/00. . . . Thus the N factors were originally derived so that a 

strength of NR n, would be exceeded 99 out of 100 times.” 1 The statistical analysis and 

derivation of the strength factors utilized in the ACI code is summarized in a paper by 

James McGregor. 2 Such probabilistic considerations raise several concerns. TNOD1 

included several comments by the TCEQ regarding the need for probabilistic 

considerations in the Applicant’s methodology for evaluating the structural stability of the 

proposed disposal units and their engineering components (e.g., see Comment 23, below). 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. Also, please 

respond to the following two additional concerns: First, if it is assumed that the probability 

of 0.99 for strength exceedance reflected in the ACI strength reduction factors applies to a 

single structure (in this case, a reinforced concrete canister), then a simple binomial 

analysis indicates that 10 out of 1,000 structures designed on the basis of ACI procedures, 

would be expected to be subject to both “understrength” and “overload.” Since the 

Applicant apparently intends to utilize several thousand reinforced concrete canisters in 

the proposed disposal units it appears that perhaps a hundred reinforced concrete 

canisters can be expected to experience both “understrength” and “overload.” It is 

requested that the Applicant consider the weight this kind of statistical analysis should be 

given in the design of the reinforced concrete canisters and that the Applicant comment on 

the behavior of a structure consequent to experiencing both “understrength” and 

“overload.” 

Second, assume that the ACI strength factors are applicable to reinforced concrete 

structures with a conventional service life. Then, it is not clear that a structure with an 

1 “Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design,” James McGregor. 1997. Chapter 2, 

“The Design Process.” 

2 

“Safety and Limit States Design for Reinforced Concrete,” James McGregor, Canadian 

Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1976. 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 12 of 25

intended service life considerably longer than that conventional service life would be 

characterized by the probability of 0.99 regarding the occurrence of both “understrength” 

and “overload.” Since the expected service life for the reinforced concrete canisters of 300 

years may be longer, if not significantly longer, than the design service life of a 

conventional reinforced concrete structure, the meaning of the strength reduction factors, 

when applied to the reinforced concrete canisters, is not clear. Please justify the application 

of these strength reduction factors to reinforced concrete canisters. 




additional analyses. Also, please see Comment 22. 


25. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The Applicant, 

without explicit discussion of the footnoted comment in TNOD1 regarding the relative 

magnitudes of creep strains and instantaneous elastic strains, has stated that “the effect of 

creep was not considered in the analysis since its effect on stress and structural strength is 

negligible.” The Applicant also states that “factors of safety used in the design are 

intended to compensate for omitting such secondary effects.” However no evidence 

supporting this statement is provided. Furthermore, the Applicant’s response does not 

seem to consider the effects of viscoelastic creep within the concrete canisters as structural 

components interacting with other such components in the containment system. Since the 

pending FLAC analyses will study the static and dynamic soil-structure interactions 

induced in the proposed containment system components, it is unclear how the Applicant 

can “rule-out” the effects of canister creep during the FLAC simulations in this a priori 

manner. 

Requested Action: Please respond to the issues noted in the discussion above. 


27. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. The TCEQ 

understands the Applicant’s response to indicate that no analysis of potential cracking in a 

reinforced concrete canister over the required 300-year service lifetime, or a 

characterization of the migration of water through any induced cracks in a canister, is 

necessary. Please confirm this understanding. Also, given the current uncertainty of the 

location of the water table, please describe the hydrological conditions in which such an 

analysis would be necessary. 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 13 of 25

28. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. Please see Comments 

22 and 23 above. 



indicated that providing a copy of the SAP2000 User’s Manual to the TCEQ may be in 

violation of their license agreement with whatever vendor the software was purchased 

from. Recently the RML team contacted CSI Berkeley, a vendor of the SAP2000 software 

regarding the status of both electronic and paper manuals relative to license agreements 

that vendor enters into with purchasers of SAP2000. CSI Berkeley indicated that under 

their license agreements the customer, after obtaining written permission from CSI 

Berkeley, can distribute copies of the SAP2000 User’s Manual. 

Requested Action: Please contact the appropriate vendor of SAP2000 and request 

permission to provide a copy of the users manual, and please provide the information 

previously requested. 

31. Comment: See previous comment. 
















Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 14 of 25





























Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 15 of 25





























Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 16 of 25



















3.5.1 

Describe the design features of the land disposal facility and the disposal units. For nearsurface 

disposal, the description shall include those design features related to integrity and 

structural stability of covers for disposal units. [30 TAC §§336.707(4) and 305.54(f)] 

1. Overall comment: The Applicant has undertaken new field work or is conducting 

additional analyses related to this comment. 






Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 17 of 25





























Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 18 of 25



3.6.1 Describe those design features related to infiltration of water, contact of wastes with 

standing water, and disposal site drainage. [30 TAC §§336.707(4) and 305.54(f)] 

3.6.2 Demonstrate that the disposal site is designed to minimize the contact of water with 

waste during storage, the contact of standing water with waste during disposal, and 

the contact of percolating or standing water with wastes after disposal. [30 TAC 

§336.729(f)] 

1. Comment: Federal rules at10 CFR 61.7(b)(2) and Texas rule at 30 TAC §336.707(4) & (5) 

require a disposal unit design which will minimize contact of water with waste, and when related 

to pathway analysis, will assure that the performance objectives of 30 TAC §§336.724 & 

336.727 are being met. Moreover, federal guidance on low-level waste disposal in NUREG 

0902, Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization, states on pages 7-8 “the accumulation 

of water in the disposal unit (the bath-tub effect) must be avoided.” NUREG/CR-5453 has 

identified several of these pathways, one of which involves “bathtubbing.” This guidance 

describes three conditions which will produce bathtubbing: infiltration of water into the disposal 

unit, a cover that is more permeable than the liner, and dissolution of the waste into water. The 

application discusses infiltration of water into the disposal unit, but does not refer to the 

permeability of the cover relative to the liner, or mention the possibility of water dissolving the 

waste. 

Requested Action: It remains unclear, based on the information provided by the 

Applicant, whether bathtubbing is likely to occur after closure. Given the uncertainty of 

the location of the water table, it is possible that the water table could encroach upon the 

disposal trench. Until the issue of the water table has been resolved, a determination about 

bathtubbing may be incomplete. Similarly, a determination regarding bathtubbing is also 

dependent on the result of the concrete equivalency demonstration. 

Also, the Applicant’s response to Comment 18 in Section 3.4 indicates that three feet of 

water will accumulate in the bottom layer of the FWF in 2,800 years. If true, this implies 

that approximately six additional feet of water will accumulate over 10,000 years. While 

the interval to a peak dose has yet to be definitively established, is it likely that 10,000 years 

will fall within that interval. Moreover, an additional six feet of accumulated water would 

be in contact with the waste matrix. Finally, even this estimation might be unrealistically 

low because it does not account for the possibility of increased infiltration rates due to 

climate change or degradation of the engineered cover. 

Considering a shorter time frame, an additional bathtubbing scenario of concern would be 

where water would enter into the concrete canisters and accumulate at the bottom of the 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 19 of 25

canisters. This is possible due to water infiltrating through joints at the top of a canister 

without an equally permeable egress. Please respond to these comments, and address the 

issue of bathtubbing as it appeared in this comment in TNOD1 below: 

• For the FWF and CWF, please demonstrate how the proposed design of the disposal unit 

will prevent “bathtubbing.” Specifically, please address short and long-term design 

specifications of the cover, bottom, and side linings relative to the issue of bathtubbing as 

mentioned above. 

• Also, if bathtubbing is an issue, it would appear that uncontainerized bulk waste in the 

FWF may become partially saturated with water over time, which would potentially 

create an unstable form and result in differential settlement of the cover, bringing about 

more infiltration of water, rather than minimizing contact of water with waste. Please 

discuss how the disposal of uncontainerized bulk waste in the FWF satisfies the 

regulatory citation above, given this scenario. 

2. Comment: The TNOD1 comment dealt with the appropriateness of the weather data 

used for the HELP model. The Applicant responded by indicating that any changes are 

negligible due to a HELP sensitivity analysis performed. However, this analysis does not 

account for uncertainty in all climatic or hydrologic parameters, as presented in 

NUREG/CR-6565. 

Requested Action: Please provide an uncertainty analysis for all parameters within the 

infiltration model to demonstrate that there is no difference in results due to ranges in the 

applicable climatic or hydrologic parameters. 

3. Comment: In Volume 8A, Appendix 3.0-3.13, infiltration was calculated using the HELP 

computer model. Input for the SCS runoff curve number was set at 85.3. However, when 

calculations for the surface runoff were determined in the Hydrology Section (Appendix 2.4.1), a 

SCS runoff curve number of 60 was used. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. Please reconcile 

the two input parameters as specified in the comment. The Applicant claims that for 

infiltration calculations using the HELP model, “average conditions that are more 

appropriate for long term modeling” were used. This assumption is flawed because of the 

variability of the climate and the uncertainty of the natural surroundings. This flaw can be 

addressed by addressing Comment 2 in this Section. Nevertheless, these “average 

conditions” indicate a wetter soil moisture condition than that which was used in 

calculating the surface water hydrology. Furthermore, no explanation was given about 

how the curve number used in the HELP model was determined. The curve number seems 

to be too high for average conditions given the statement in Volume 2A, Appendix 2.4.1 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 20 of 25

that an “average condition runoff curve number in west Texas is Antecedent Moisture 

Condition I (AMC I).” Additionally, curve numbers submitted as part of this application 

in the past, which do not take into account dry (AMC I) or wet (AMC III) soil conditions, 

are in the range of 79 to 72. Please provide a lower curve number in the infiltration 

calculations to represent this “average” condition. 

In modeling the surface water hydrology, the response given by the Applicant indicates 

that the SCS curve number provided was used to “represent extreme conditions of 

maximum precipitation and surface runoff for the purpose of evaluating flood conditions 

with dry [emphasis added] antecedent soil moisture.” However, it is not appropriate to 

represent extreme conditions of surface runoff for evaluating flood conditions while using 

dry soil conditions. Given the long-term nature of the facility and the possibility for future 

climate change to a wetter climate, it is important for the Applicant to characterize the 

surface hydrology under additional, wetter conditions. Therefore, please use Antecedent 

Moisture Conditions (AMC) II and III, in addition to Antecedent Moisture Condition I, to 

provide a more complete assessment of the surface water hydrology. 

4. Comment: Following are general comments relating to the adequacy of using the HELP 

model to determine infiltration into the waste matrix. 

• Due to the clay layers in the cover, two-dimensional flow could possibly occur, affecting 

the outcome of the results. One-dimensional flow does not account for the fact that the 

flux of the water may vary spatially and may produce more water infiltration at the lower 

edges of the clay layer. 

• Additionally, the thicknesses of the clay layers in the cover varies throughout the sixty 

acres of the FWF and the twenty acres of the CWF. The average thicknesses given in the 

model do not account for this variability. 

• Two-dimensional flow could also come from outside the footprint of the waste, such as 

from the playa to the north of the facility, which could circumvent the cover, accumulate 

at the cover edge, and increase infiltration into the waste. 

• There also exists the possibility of increased infiltration due to deterioration of the cover 

over time. 

Requested Action: Please address concerns related to the adequacy of the HELP model. It 

is necessary that a 2-D model of infiltration rates be provided to demonstrate facility 

performance. The reasons are discussed below. The Applicant has claimed that the 

“HELP model results in conservatively high predictions of the water infiltration rate.” It 

continues by stating that “edge effects that would be treated in a two dimensional model 

are not important.” However, no data has been submitted to support this conclusion. 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 21 of 25

Additionally, output of the infiltration calculations can be input into the FLAC analysis of 

structural stability, and it is good practice to make dimensionality of the infiltration 

analysis commensurate with the dimensionality of the FLAC analysis. Furthermore, using 

the FLAC analysis can validate the importance of edge effects regarding localized 

saturation on slope stability. 

The Applicant’s justification for using HELP also remains questionable due to the 

statement from the User’s Guide to Version 3 of the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill 

Performance (HELP) Model which states that “the model cannot simulate a capillary 

break or unsaturated lateral drainage.” Based on representations made elsewhere in the 

license application, both of these conditions exist at the site. Also, Figure 6.6-3a in Volume 

3a shows ten feet of saturated thickness in the OAG layer just northeast of the FWF. This 

indicates a non-homogenous subsurface, which might necessitate a 2-D model. 

The Applicant states that for the cover degradation, “its likelihood of occurrence is thought 

to be small” based on the assumption that the performance cover is “expected to approach 

the same conditions as the natural undisturbed red bed material.” However, there are 

studies that dispute this, for example , “Compacted Soil Barriers at Abandoned Landfill 

Sites are Likely to Fail in the Long Term” 3 is one such study, with “long-term” referring to 

“greater than 100 years.” Please account for increased infiltration due to cover 

degradation over time. Possible climate change (increased precipitation) should be a factor 

in the analysis. 

The assumptions laid out seem to hinge on the performance of the select Red Bed layer to 

reach a single hydraulic conductivity of 10 -9 cm/sec. Please address variability of the Select 

Red Bed clay in an infiltration model, given Comment 55 in Attachment 2, Section 2.7.1 

and published findings 4 that indicate large variability in hydraulic conductivity of clays 

over large areas. 

• Please provide a two-dimensional unsaturated flow model to account for infiltration 

occurring within the waste disposal footprint and from infiltration outside the footprint. 

[NUREG/CR-6114] 

3 Sutter II, G., Luxmoore, R., Smith, E. (1993). “Compacted Soil Barriers at Abandoned 

Landfill Sites are Likely to Fail in the Long Term.” Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 22, 

pp. 217-226. 

4 Rogowski, A. (1988). “Flux Density and Breakthrough Times for Water and Tracer in a 

Spatially Variable, Compacted Clay Soil.” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, Vol. 3, pp. 327- 

348. 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 22 of 25

• Please provide an analysis which accounts for the degradation of the cover over time. 

NUREG-1573 recommends adjusting the hydraulic properties of the cover in a step-wise 

fashion to reflect the continuing degradation of the components in the disposal unit. 

Consideration should not only include degradation of the clay barrier, but also of 

clogging within the drainage layers, which would limit its effectiveness in conducting 

water away from the disposal unit. 


6. Comment: The original comment discussed the pumps for the lined and ramp cells. 

Requested Action: Please address concerns related to the pumps in lined and ramp cells. 

While the Applicant has addressed some of these points in response to TNOD1, it is still 

unclear how water from the ramp cell will be conveyed. Will the pump(s) that is removing 

the water from the ramp cell be the same one used for the lined cells? In particular, please 

address how many pumps will be provided for each phase and cell, and ensure that these 

numbers match those of the cost estimates. There is also the possibility of radionuclide 

contamination of the water in the ramp cell. Are there procedures in place regarding 

testing and discharge of water from the ramp cell? In the lined cells, will the same pumps 

be used after closure, and will the pumps still be able to operate in lower flows and higher 

head? 



Demonstrate that surface features direct surface water drainage away from disposal units 

at velocities and gradients which will not result in erosion that will require ongoing active 

maintenance. [30 TAC §336.729(e)] 


2. Comment: Volume 8A of the application applies the Permissible Velocity Theory to 

demonstrate protection from erosion on the ditches, berms, and cover. NUREG-1623 

recommends using the Shear Stress Method for a more accurate representation of the erosional 

forces on the surface drainage features. 

Requested Action: Please demonstrate erosion resistance of the ditches, cover, and berms 

using the Shear Stress Method. The range of permissible values used is too great to make 

an actual determination on the effectiveness of the cover, berms and ditches against 

erosion. 

3. Comment: Volume 8A, Appendices 3.0-3.2 and 3.0-3.3 state that the diversion ditches will 

Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 23 of 25

e constructed from the natural caliche found at the site. However, there do not appear to be any 

erosion calculations indicating that the side slopes have been taken into account for the design. 

NUREG-1623 recommends using a rip-rap for design of armoring the side slopes. 

Requested Action: Please provide a demonstration of the performance of natural caliche. 

No data has been submitted to determine whether the natural caliche can withstand the 

erosional forces for the side slopes of the ditches. Please follow the procedures in Appendix 

D to demonstrate how the natural caliche can be used as channel armoring for the side 

slopes. An alternative to this demonstration would be to provide rip-rap as channel 

armoring for the side slopes, channel bottom and outlet; and updating cost estimates 

accordingly. Please note that a discussion of using natural materials for channel armoring 

is found in NUREG-1623, Appendix D, Section 7. 


Describe the design basis natural events or phenomena and their relationship to the 

principal design criteria. [ 30 TAC §336.707(2)] 

1. Overall Comment: Answered in TNOD1 response. 

2. Comment: Please provide the information previously requested. This response is 

substantially complete, however the Applicant has cited the F2 classification of two 

recorded wind speeds as the basis for using a wind gust speed of 160 mph despite the caveat 

on the use of the Fujita Scale referenced in the TNOD1 comment. 

Requested Action: Please respond to TNOD1 comment regarding use of F2 Scale. 









Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 24 of 25



Demonstrate how the design of the land disposal facility incorporates safeguards against 

hazards resulting from local meteorological conditions, including phenomena such as 

hurricanes, tornados, violent storms, and susceptibility to flooding, as well as seismic 

phenomena such as earthquakes and earth tremors. [30 TAC §336.729(g)] 


Attachment 3 


1/30/2006 Page 25 of 25

Attachment 4 



Construction 


Describe the codes and standards which will apply to construction of the land disposal 

facilities. [30 TAC §336.707(3)] 

1. Comment: NUREG 1200 and NUREG/CR-5041both recommend using ACI 349, “Code 

Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures” and/or ANSI N45.2.5, 

“Supplementary Quality Assurance Requirements for Installation, Inspection, and Testing of 

Structural Concrete and Structural Steel During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power 

Plants” for requirements relating to concrete design, concrete specifications, concrete 

construction, and quality assurance. The application instead uses ACI 318, “Building Code 

Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.” 

Requested Action: In its TNOD1 response, the applicant did not use ACI 349, claiming that 

the code and ACI 318 vary only by factors of safety. However, please note that ACI 349 

also comments on compatibility issues regarding reinforced concrete and radioactive 

materials. Furthermore, the Applicant has stated that the “stringency” in ACI 349 is not 

needed because of the supposed arid environment of the proposed trench. However, there 

is ongoing uncertainty of the location of the water table at the site. Please apply ACI 349, 

as recommended by NUREGs, to pertinent construction areas and reference the code in the 



Describe construction of the disposal facility, including construction methods of the 

disposal units. [30 TAC §§336.707(5), 305.54(f)] 


2. Comment: The application has applied the word “may” to the following construction 

technical specifications: 

• Appendix 4.2.2, Section 1.0-B (Cast-in-place Concrete Layer) states that “if the concrete 

cannot be protected during adverse weather, WCS may postpone placement operations.” 

• Appendix 4.2.3, Part 2.1-G (Reinforced Concrete) states that “cement may be sampled 

and tested for compliance at any time.” 

Attachment 4 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 4

• Appendix 4.2.3, Part 2.7-A.2 (Reinforced Concrete) states that “fly ash may be sampled 

and tested for compliance at any time.” 

• Appendix 4.2.3, Part 2.7-B.2 (Reinforced Concrete) states that “natural pozzolan may use 

[sic] instead of fly ash” 

• Appendix 4.2.3, Part 3.3-B (Reinforced Concrete) states that “High Range Water 

Reducer may be added at the job site.” 

Requested Action: Please fully specify all relevant procedures related in the 

production/creation of reinforced concrete for use at the proposed facility, or alternatively, 

adopt ACI 349 as requested in Section 4.1, Comment 1. The Applicant has clarified the 

context of the word “may” in its response to TNOD1. However, the response does not 

specify what these optional activities entail, under what circumstances these activities will 

be performed, how quality will be maintained, or how changes will be reported. 


4. Comment: Appendix 4.2.3, Section 03 40 00 (Precast Concrete), Part 3.5 states that, 

“canisters damaged in shipping may be repairs [sic] only when approved in advance by WCS.” 

Requested Action: The information presented in the Applicant’s response to TNOD1 is not 

sufficient to finalize a technical review and to determine compliance with agency rules. 

Please list what defects would be allowed under WCS approval, what defects would be 

considered to be repairable and what type of repair would be performed in such cases. 

5. Comment: 30 TAC §336.716(f) states that “No waste shall be disposed of until the executive 

director has inspected the land disposal facility and has found it to be in conformance with the 

description, design, and construction described in the application for a license.” One way of 

ensuring that the design and construction of the facility is in conformance with the design and 

construction indicated in the application for a license is through the submission of as-built 

drawings and construction certifications. However, no specific plan for submitting these 

documents and drawings were found in the application. 

Requested Action: The revised “Construction Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Plan” has been reviewed. However, the plan does not provide for TCEQ approval of the 

“red-lined” plans to insure that the changes made in the field are in conformance with the 

design and construction of the license application. Please provide a plan for submitting 

documentation or other method, which will allow the TCEQ to verify that design and 

construction of the facility will conform to the design and construction in the application. Also, 

this plan should address submittal of documentation on how any deviations from approved 

methods in the construction phase, otherwise meet the requirements of the specifications, 

Attachment 4 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 4

standards, and design submitted to TCEQ. 




Provide plans for the operation of a monitoring program during the land disposal facility 

site construction. Measurements and observations shall be made and recorded to provide 

data to evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts during the construction of 

the facility and to enable the evaluation of long-term effects and the need for mitigative 

measures. The monitoring system shall be capable of providing early warning of releases of 

radionuclides and chemical constituents before they leave the disposal site boundary. [30 

TAC §336.731(b)] 

1. Comment: 30 TAC §336.730(b)(2) states that “Waste designated as containerized Class A, 

Class B, Class C . . . shall be disposed of in the following manner: . . .in such a manner that the 

waste can be monitored [emphasis added] and retrieved.” NUREG-1200 and NUREG/CR-5041 

Vol.2, “Recommendations to the NRC for Review Criteria for Alternative Methods of Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Disposal” recommend monitoring such waste in terms of structural 

performance of the structure holding the waste, which also assists in verifying design 

assumptions and providing “reasonable assurance that there will not be a need for ongoing active 

maintenance of the disposal site following closure” as specified in 30 TAC §336.709(4). To 

meet these requirements, guidance documents recommend monitoring for the following 

structural parameters within the disposal facility: settlement of the disposal foundation, strain on 

the concrete structures, and movement of contraction joints in the concrete structures. 

Settlement 

NUREG/CR-5041 recommends a settlement monitoring system, which can measure and record 

differential settlement of the disposal unit foundation during and after construction. This is 

essential in that it helps evaluate stresses and strains in the subsurface, and when used in 

conjunction with surface surveys, can determine whether the cover, waste matrix, and/or the 

disposal foundation is subsiding. The application provides information on “settlement 

monitors”, which are described as benchmarks, and “walkover inspections”. While these tools 

are helpful in describing and evaluating the surface, they do not provide any indication as to any 

structural distress underground. 

Strain 

NUREG/CR-5041 recommends monitoring the strain on the concrete structures using strain 

gauges. These devices can be used to measure internal stresses, which are essential in providing 

assurance that the containment structures are performing as indicated in the application. 

Furthermore, measuring strain will help assess the stresses on the concrete structure over time, 

Attachment 4 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 4

and could possibly detect the stability of the structures in the long-term. The application, 

however, makes no apparent reference to monitoring the strain. 

Movement of contraction joints 

Measuring the movement of contraction joints in the concrete structures is recommended due to 

the inherent nature of thermal expansion/contraction of all materials, including concrete. This 

thermal energy may come from the radioactive or chemical properties of the waste. The joints 

provide a release of the buildup of these thermal stresses, but as a result, provide a potential for 

infiltration of liquid into the structure and/or escape of radioactive waste constituents from these 

structures. The joints on the canisters may come from the lid/canister interface or other specified 

locations. Again, the application makes no apparent reference to monitoring movements of 

joints. 

NUREG/CR-5041 also recommends the optional structural monitoring of measurements of 

stresses, deflections, pore pressures, as well as internal concrete variables, such as shrinkage, 

temperature, moisture, and corrosion. 

Requested Action: Please provide plans for monitoring settlement, strain and joint 

movement in proposed concrete structures. The construction of a structure according to a 

plan, even a plan that contemplates the results of computer modeling, does not obviate the 

requirement for monitoring during construction and post-construction periods. 

2. Comment: NUREG/CR-5041 recommends a remedial action plan corresponding to the 

structural monitoring mentioned in the previous comment. This plan should indicate the 

“limiting values or action levels” of the measurements and “the response to be taken if these 

values are exceeded.” These responses should be justified and time allowed for these responses 

should also be indicated. 

Requested Action: No remedial action plan that responds to structural performance issues 

was found in the appendix cited in the TNOD1 response provided by the Applicant. Please 

provide a remedial action plan relating to the monitoring of the structural performance within the 

disposal unit. 

Attachment 4 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 4

Attachment 5 



Operation 


Describe the types, chemical and physical forms, quantities, classification, and 

specifications of the radioactive material proposed to be received, possessed, processed, and 

disposed of at the land disposal facility. The description shall include any prior disposal 

containing radioactive material at the site. The description shall include performance 

criteria for form and packaging of the waste or radioactive material that has been 

previously received and will be received. [THSC §401.112(a)(8)] & [30 TAC §§336.707(6), 

305.45(a)(8)(B)(ii)] 

1. Comment: Volume 1A, Section 5.0, page 5.4, states, “Waste to be received at the facility is 

described in Section 8.2 of this Application, including physical and chemical forms, waste 

classification (i.e., Class A, B, or C), and generator profile information.” However, Volume 1A, 

Section 8.2 and its corresponding Appendices do not contain information on the potentially 

hazardous chemical constituents in the 72 waste streams, including chemical properties and their 

physical forms. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. Section 8.2 and 

procedures OP-1.0, HS-1 through HS-10 and HS-100 do not provide all the information 

requested. Please clearly identify and describe all chemical properties, chemical 

constituents, and physical forms of each of the 50 CWF and 70 FWF proposed waste 

streams. Also, identify and describe all safety and health concerns specific to the hazards 

presented by these constituents and chemical properties, and develop operating procedures 

which consider these hazards. Although the Applicant says this information will be 

included later as part of a RCRA application, it is necessary that it be included as part of 

this application, as well, in order to determine adequacy and compatibility of the low-level 

radioactive waste disposal facility design, procedures and cost estimates. 

2. Comment: Volume 1A, Section 5.3, page 5-9, states, “Wastes with high radiation fields, 

pathogenic hazards, or other occupational risks will not be subject to verification inspections.” It 

is unclear from reading this section of the application and the corresponding operating 

procedures which waste streams are being referred to and why they will not be subject to 

verification inspections. The requirements of a waste verification testing program are described 

in NUREG-1199. See specifically Sections 4.1 (4) and (5). See also NUREG 1200, Review 

Plan 4.1, Section 3.2, page 4.1.4. 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 32

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. Please state 

clearly and specifically which of the 50 CWF and 70 FWF proposed waste streams will not 

be subjected to verification inspections and what alternative means of waste verification 

will be used for these waste streams. In addition, the revised Waste Acceptance Plan and 

Operating Procedures do not provide a plan to implement statistically valid random 

sampling and effective verification of waste classification and characterization of wastes 

received at the CWF and FWF. It is vital to the technical review that such a plan be 

provided and an implementation program be thoroughly described. 

3. Comment: Volume 1A, Section 5.4, page 5-12, states, “In general the high pH environment 

of the waste cells, due to the grout layering and void spaces filling, will limit the effectiveness of 

any chelating agent.” This statement appears to indicate that LLRW containing chelating agents 

may have a low pH. 

Requested Action: The TNOD1 response is incomplete. Please describe how the Applicant 

intends to ensure that radionuclides will not be co-disposed with elevated concentrations of 

chelating agents in high pH materials such as concrete. 

4. Comment: Volume 9, Appendix 5.2-1, page 4, discusses the waste characteristic 

requirements of 30 TAC §336.362(b), and in general terms discusses waste streams the FWF and 

the CWF will and will not accept for disposal. However, this discussion does not address the 

applicability of this rule to the different classes of waste. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. Please address 

clearly and specifically all the chemical properties, chemical constituents, and physical 

forms of the 50 CWF and 70 FWF proposed waste streams. Please discuss provisions for 

facilitating waste handling and protecting human health and safety in relation to the different 

classes of waste as required by 30 TAC §336.362(b)(1). 


Describe the Applicant’s protocol for waste acceptance, classification, and rejection criteria 

1. Comment: The application does not appear to provide sampling and testing procedures 

necessary to verify waste classification for incoming waste intended for disposal. See for 

example, Volume 1A, Section 5.0, Operations, page 5-6; Volume 9, Appendix 5.2-1, Section 

3.1, Waste Acceptance Plan; and Volume 9A, OP-2.0, Section 5.3.5, LLRW and MLLRW. The 

recommended elements of a waste verification testing program are described in NUREG-1199, 

Sections 4.1 (4) and (5), and in NUREG 1200, Review Plan 4.1, Section 3.2, page 4.1.4. 

Requested Action: Please provide information previously requested. The revised Waste 

Acceptance Plan and Operating Procedures do not provide a plan to implement 

statistically valid random sampling and effective verification of waste classification and 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 32

characterization of wastes received at the CWF and FWF. It is vital to the technical review 

that such a plan be provided and an implementation program be thoroughly described. 

2. Comment: Volume 1A, Section 5.1, page 5-6, states “ In general, bulk waste receipts will 

be debris streams with relatively low organic content, low airborne respirable fractions, and a 

physical consistency that allows reliable in-place compaction to near optimum density. The 

criteria for receipt of bulk waste materials will be subject to operational evaluation before and 

after transport to WCS, and will include historical compaction experience for similar types of 

waste.” 

Requested Action: The Applicant has not provided the organic and chemical constituent 

concentrations for the proposed 62 FWF Class A waste streams that will be emplaced as 

bulk waste, nor has it provided the radionuclide concentration for the airborne fractions in 

the atmosphere of the affected vicinity for the bulk emplacement activities defined in OP- 

4.0. Please be provide a complete listing of the 62 FWF Class A streams the Applicant 

intends to commingle with canisterized waste. In addition, the application mentions the 

testing of two parameters only (moisture and compaction density) in bulk waste. This 

attempt to demonstrate structural stability of bulk waste is insufficient. The Applicant is 

advised to follow all the requirements of 30 TAC §336.362 (b)(2)(A), NUREG-1200, SRP 

4.1, Section 4.3.5 and Waste Form Technical Position Paper Dated January 24, 1991 related 

to structural stability. Please revise operating procedures to address any operational 

considerations for the proposed placement of bulk waste, including worker dose and 

ALARA considerations. Additionally, please revise closure cost estimates accordingly with 

consideration given. 

3. Comment: Volume 1A, Section 5.2, page 5-7 states, “Waste is rejected and returned to the 

waste generator if there are safety issues, regulatory violations, or license violations that cannot 

be resolved.” It is further stated, “Discrepancies that cannot be resolved and present a safety or 

health risk, or violate regulations or license conditions will result in the waste being returned to 

the generator.” 

Requested Action: The response provided on Page 8 of Attachment 5 of TNOD1 is not 

explicitly provided in Procedure OP-5, Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.5. Please include this answer 

on the above mentioned sections of OP-5. 

4. Comment: Volume 1A, Section 5.2, page 5-6, states, “Bulk waste shipments will be 

received for disposal when the waste character is compatible with operational safety and waste 

cell design requirements.” This statement lacks specificity and written procedures were not 

found. 

Requested Action: Please provide operating procedures, as appropriate, and include 

operating steps intended to protect the waste cell and equipment. Items to consider may 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 32

include concrete, rebar, grout, sand, native materials and any other proposed material or 

equipment that may come in direct contact with the LLRW. Also, consider the chemical 

properties, chemical constituents and the potential hazards of the proposed LLRW 

streams, appropriate Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) and any ALARA 

considerations. 






10. Comment: Proposed instructions in The Shipment Document Review Form OP-2.0-2, 

Volume 9A, OP-2, page 27, contain a step to verify the weight percent of any chelating agent 

that may be present in the waste package, but do not give procedures for corrective action if the 

limit is exceeded. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. Please provide 

procedure(s) to determine the amount of chelating agent present in the waste to verify the 

amount manifested on the shipping papers by the generator. 

11. Comment: Waste Handling Procedure, Volume 9A, OP-3.0. On page 5, operating steps 

5.1.1 through 5.1.4, request verification on the completion of certain forms and activities. The 

procedure does not state clearly which person or position will be responsible for verification of 

this information. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. 


13. Comment: The procedure provided in Volume 9A, OP-3.0, Form 3.0.1, and Attachment A 

do not describe the required Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) for off-loading and 

overpacking activities. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. 

14. Comment: Volume 9A, OP-3.0, page 6 states “Pre-select a location on the CWF or FWF 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 32

staging pad or off-loading area for the waste package or transport container. Non-containerized 

waste material will not be off-loaded on the staging pad.” These operating steps suggest offloading 

areas other than the staging pads which have not been identified in the application. 

In addition, on Page 29 of OP-4.0, Attachment D the Applicant states “ The sequence of 

activities described here begins after the bulk waste has been examined and accepted, and 

the bulk waste is located on a waste conveyance device near disposal unit floor.” There is 

no explanation of how bulk waste gets to the conveyance device on the trench floor, nor 

detailed procedures addressing waste acceptance activities and the loading and off-loading 

of bulk waste once the LLRW bulk waste enters the LLRW main gate. 

Requested Action: Attachment D in OP-4.0 is the bulk waste disposal procedure that 

addresses the handling of bulk waste after it has been placed on a waste conveyance device 

near the disposal unit floor. Please describe, providing any necessary additional 

procedures, the handling of bulk waste from the time it enters the LLRW main gate until it 

is deposited on the conveyance device on the disposal unit floor. This description should 

clearly address the following activities and items: 

a) how bulk waste will be inspected, surveyed and analyzed for waste acceptance; 

b) what vehicles and equipment will be used to deliver, handle and transport the bulk 

waste prior to entering the facility gate; 

c) what off-loading or transloading activities will take place from the time the waste enters 

the gate until it rests on the trench floor; 

d) what the anticipated airborne concentrations of radionuclides and other chemical 

constituents will be in the atmospheres where these activities noted above occur; 

e) what specific PPE will be worn by all relevant personnel during these activities and how 

ALARA considerations will be addressed; 

f) what procedures or precautions will be taken during these activities in rain or strong 

winds; and 

g) what proposed licensing jurisdictions are relative to bulk waste acceptance and handling 

between the TCEQ, DSHS, or other regulatory agency. Please provide in the procedures a 

map with notes and instructions delineating areas of jurisdiction as proposed by the 

Applicant. 


Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 5 of 32

16. Comment: Volume 9A, OP-3.0, page 23 indicates that contaminated water could be 

generated at the emergency shower in the guardhouse. Drawings CO.14 and CO.15 indicate the 

same. 

Requested Action: In the Applicants response to this comment, it was stated that water 

used for decontamination of equipment at the decontamination pad will be handled as 

described in Section 5.3.5 of procedure RS-18. Section 5.3.5 of procedure RS-18 could not 

be found. Please indicate specifically how water used to decontaminate equipment will be 

handled. 



Describe all analysis and inspection techniques, including any analytical procedures to be 

used. 

1. Comment: Volume 9, Appendix 5.2-1, page 7, states, “Containerized waste will not be 

opened. Waste that is not containerized, or otherwise accessible, will be sampled and then 

analyzed in the LLRW disposal facility counting laboratory.” This section of the Waste 

Acceptance Plan appears to be inconsistent with NUREG-1200, SRP 4.1, Receipt and Inspection 

of Waste, Section 3.2, p. 4.1-5. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. The revised 

Waste Acceptance Plan and Operating Procedures, do not provide a plan to implement 




2. Comment: Volume 9, Appendix 5.2-1, page 7; and Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, OP-2.0, 

Paragraph 5.3.5.3 states, “For any waste stream reported to be within 50% of a class limit 

(reference Tables I and II of 30 TAC §336.362(a)(3)(D) and 30 TAC § 336.362(a)(4)(E), WCS 

will sample and analyze the waste stream to verify proper classification at a 90 % confidence 

level, or the waste stream will be reassigned to the next higher class.” This describes a 

procedure for classifying wastes for waste acceptance purposes, but this procedure is given 

without a reference. Please consider the following: 

The proposed procedure has two steps: if a waste stream is reported to be within 50% of a Class 

limit, either it will be reassigned to the next higher class, or “WCS will sample and analyze the 

waste stream to verify proper classification at a 90% confidence.” Because of the reference to a 

“90% confidence,” the intent of this procedure appears to provide some level of statistical 

“confidence” that a waste stream is not mis-classified. The level of assurance provided by this 

procedure cannot be determined from the information provided. Without further information the 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 6 of 32

usefulness of the proposed procedure for preventing mis-classifications of waste streams cannot 

be determined. 

According to the proposed procedure, a waste stream is properly classified if it is not within 50% 

of a Class limit. This reasoning functions as a screening procedure. It is not clear why 50% was 

chosen. There is no indication if empirical evidence or statistical simulations were used for this 

determination. It is also not clear if this percent applies to the Class limit lower than the reported 

value for the waste stream and/or to the class limit higher than the reported value. 

Also, the specification of a “90% confidence” is not sufficient to define the second step of the 

procedure because it is not known if this is a confidence interval or a confidence limit being 

proposed. It is also not known how this interval or limit will be used to make the needed 

classification. In addition the “power” of such a limit or interval to determine when a waste 

stream has been mis-classified depends not only on the magnitude of the deviation of the 

reported value from its true value, but also on the number of samples utilized in the construction 

of the limit or interval. Since the proposed procedure does not specify a sample size the “power” 

of the procedure is unknown. 

Also, in the second step of the procedure, it is not clear what kind of confidence limit or interval 

is being proposed such as interval parametric or non-parametric. If it is parametric, the samples 

should be realizations of a normal distribution, a logarithmic distribution, or a different 

distribution. It is also not clear what procedure would be taken if the analysis indicates the 

samples are not from the specified distribution. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. The revised 

Waste Acceptance Plan and Operating Procedures do not provide a plan to implement 




3. Comment: In reviewing the Waste Analysis Plan it does not appear that the waste 

verification personnel will have access to adequate equipment, facilities, and analytical 

procedures and methods capable of performing waste classifications for verification purposes. 

The proposed counting lab seems inadequate to conduct chemical analysis for the determination 

of chemical constituents and chemical properties in waste as described in NUREG-1200, SRP 

4.1,Section 4.3.4, page 4.1-8. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. Please provide 

information to clarify whether the facility will have sufficient capability to perform all 

analytical procedures required for waste verification. If not, please explain if and how 

independent laboratories will be utilized. Please explain how the requirements of the waste 

acceptance plan will be met. 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 7 of 32


A description of how the facility will ensure waste and/or debris arriving at the site 

matches the waste and/or debris designated on accompanying shipping tickets. 






Provide a description of the specific provisions and actions the Applicant will take if the 

materials do not meet low-level radioactive waste specifications or are improperly 

processed or packaged. 



Normal characteristics of the waste which must be known in order to store, process, or 

dispose of the waste and debris; and any abnormal characteristics which may upset further 

treatment or processing operations. 

1. Comment: “NUREG-1199", Section 4.1 page 4.1-1 recommends, “The applicant should 

describe the procedures or contracts in place that will ensure that arriving shipments comply with 

applicable Federal regulations and waste acceptance criteria that might be incorporated into the 

disposal facility license as conditions. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. Please include in 

the application the description mentioned above or explain how this recommendation will be 

met. 

Section 5.2.6 

Describe methods which the Applicant will use to identify and manage free liquids. 

1. Comment: The Waste Acceptance Plan, Volume 9, Appendix 5.2-1 states that liquid 

determination in waste shall be made by process knowledge or can be met by visual inspection 

of each container at the time of packaging. This statement does not provide an adequate 

procedure for determining the amount of liquids in the waste, nor does it mention methods to be 

used for reducing or absorbing liquids as discussed in 30 TAC §336.362.(b)(1)(C-D). 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 8 of 32

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. Please provide an 

adequate procedure that addresses the handling of liquids in the waste, or discuss how the 

requirements of 30 TAC §336.362.(b)(1)(C-D) will be met. 


Describe the operation of the land disposal facility. The description shall include: methods 

and areas of waste storage, the procedures for and areas of waste segregation, and facilities 

for and methods of processing waste including improperly packaged shipments. The 

description shall also include the methods to be employed in the handling of wastes. 

1. Comment: Volume 9A, OP-2.0, page 3, states, “Railhead operations are outside the scope of 

this procedure and the Part 61 radioactive materials application, license and associated permits.” 

The Socioeconomic Impact Analysis (SIA), Attachment A of Appendix 11.1.1, Sections 2.4.5 

and 2.4.6, discuss the impact of an additional 450 rail shipments per year. Appendix 5.3.1, 

Disposal Receipot Staging Analysis, provides a staging/demurrage plan for railcars and 

gondolas bringing in radioactive waste. These statements appear to be contradictory and present 

an unclear picture as to whether or not bulk waste will be brought into the site by train. 

Requested Action: Please provide requested information on railhead operations. The 

TCEQ disagrees with the Applicant’s statement that railhead operations are outside the 

scope of this procedure and the Part 61 radioactive materials application, license and 

associated permits. See 30 TAC §336.1(f)(2) which states: “No person shall receive lowlevel 

radioactive waste from other persons for the purpose of disposal, except for a person 

specifically licensed for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste.” 

Thus, receipt of waste for disposal is a licensed activity included in the consideration a Part 

61 license. Please provide a general description of the procedure and authorization for 

receipt of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) by rail under any existing license or permit. 

If the Applicant intends to receive any LLRW by rail that is intended for disposal, then 

provide detailed operating procedures including but not limited to waste acceptance 

procedures, radiation safety procedures, as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) 

compliance, emergency response procedures, and manifesting requirements sufficient to 

address these activities in detail. Please resolve any inconsistencies in the application with 

regard to receipt of LLRW by rail including Appendix 5.3.1 (staging/demurrage plan for 

gondolas bringing in radioactive waste for disposal), Appendix 11.1.1, Attachment A of the 

Socioeconomic Impacts to the State of Texas (Sections 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 discuss the impact of 

an additional 450 rail shipments of waste), and Procedure RS-10 (the second paragraph on 

Page 4 mentions packages arriving by rail). Please define the term “rail shipments.” 

In addition, Page 29 of OP-4.0, Attachment D states “The sequence of activities described 

here begins after the bulk waste has been examined and accepted, and the bulk waste is 

located on a waste conveyance device near disposal unit floor.” Please explain how bulk 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 9 of 32

waste is transferred from the rail head to the conveyance device on the trench floor and 

provide detailed procedures addressing waste acceptance activities including the loading 

and off-loading of bulk waste both before and after the LLRW bulk waste enters the 

LLRW main gate. 

2. Comment: Volume 9A, OP-2.0, page 3, states, “Treatment , processing and stabilization of 

waste is PROHIBITED in the FWF/CWF or any of its facilities shown in Figure 1. Spill 

response is not treatment, processing or stabilization of waste.” Volume 9A, OP-2.0, page 3, 

states, “The Director-Customer Service will process written or telephone requests from the 

shipper concerning the shipments, receipt, and storage and processing of waste.” Volume 1A, 

section 5.1, page 5-5, states, “A significant portion of the bulk waste is likely to meet specific 

waste form stability requirements, or can be processed to do so, which will eliminate the need for 

concrete canisters for structural stability.” The statements appear contradictory and do not state 

unequivocally whether or not there will be or not be processing of LLRW at the LLRW disposal 

site. 

Requested Action: The application still contains numerous inconsistencies with regard to 

plans for treatment and processing of LLRW intended for disposal in the CWF and FWF. 

The proposed source term for the CWF includes “as disposed” not “as generated waste” 

from the generators. “As disposed waste” is 30 percent less in volume than “as generated,” 

possibly indicating processing either by the generator or by the licensee prior to disposal. 

In addition, the procedures in Section 5 pertaining to the compaction of FWF bulk waste 

make reference to treatment of hazardous waste to make it Land Disposal Restriction 

compliant. Density changes of the waste, volume changes of the waste and/or the chemical 

treatment of mixed waste or any other LLRW waste are forms of treatment/processing. 

Please resolve all inconsistencies in the application relating to treatment and processing of 

LLRW. Please address the treatment procedures involving chemical changes and physical 

changes that the LLRW waste intended for disposal will undergo prior to its emplacement 

in the trench. 




Provide a flow diagram of waste processing and disposal operations and a description and 

accurate drawings of processing equipment, and any special handling techniques to be 

employed. 


Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 10 of 32


Provide a description of the operation of the land disposal facility. The description shall 

include waste emplacement. The description shall also include the methods to be employed 

in the handling and disposal of wastes containing chelating agents or other nonradiological 

substances that might affect meeting the performance objectives of 30 TAC §336.723. 






6. Comment: Volume 9A, OP-4.0, page 7 states that the applicant intends to “Evaluate bulk 

material gradation and composition to meet structural stability requirements and verify cell 

readiness for placement in the facility.” This operating step does not provide quantitative 

information on gradation and composition to determine that the structural stability requirements 

of 30 TAC §336.362 (b)(2)(A) will be met. 

Requested Action: Please address concerns regarding structural stability. Neither the new 

definition of bulk waste provided in OP-4.0 nor the two parameter checks (density and 

moisture) contained in Attachment D of OP-4.0 propose rule compliant procedures. If the 

Applicant intends to commingle containerized waste with non-containerized Class A waste 

streams which contain radionuclides greater than 35 years, and which have transuranics in 

concentrations less than ten nanocuries/gram, then the Applicant needs to identify which of 

the 70 proposed FWF streams these will be, and propose meeting structural stability 

requirements per 30 TAC §336.362 (b)(2)(A), NUREG-1200, SRP 4.1, Section 4.3.5 and 

Waste Form Technical Position Paper Dated January 24, 1991. Please update cost estimates 

accordingly. 


8. Comment: Volume 9A, OP-4.0, page 14, provides two figures showing how the waste will 

be placed in the disposal unit. The figures also show how the development of the disposal unit 

will advance as waste is being placed. The figures and text pertaining to waste emplacement do 

not indicate how the 7 layers of the liner and the 13 layers of the cover will be fused or put 

together as the unit size is increased to accommodate additional waste. 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 11 of 32

Requested Action: The Applicant partially answered this question in its TNOD1 response, 

but needs to provide detailed descriptions of how the 3-foot thick red clay layer and the 

other components will be emplaced, compacted and joined on the 1:2 slope wall of the 

CWF and FWF trenches. 


10. Comment: Volume 9A, OP-4.0, pages 21 and 22, address the offloading of LLRW 

packages from casks and the placement of these packages into canisters. Page 22 states, “If the 

canister is already partially full, the new waste package will rest on top of the old one.” 

Requested Action: Please include procedures to address in detail the disposition, testing, 

and decontamination of shipping casks. Please clarify the procedure to include steps for the 

disposition of casks and any decontaminating procedures, if required. Also please clarify the 

statement about the new package resting on top of the old one. 

11. Comment: Volume 9A, OP-4.0, pages 33 through 35 provide procedures for the placement 

of the interim cover. The procedures mention that interim cover placement will begin after the 

first 200 feet of width have been filled with bulk waste. This placement will repeat after the next 

200 feet have been filled. 

Requested Action: This question was partially answered in the response to TNOD1. Please 

indicate the amount of time that will elapse until an interim cover is installed over a filled 

(with waste and grout) cell. How long will it be before the permanent (six layer) cover is 

installed over the interim cover? Also, please calculate the amount of water that will 

collect in an uncovered, unfilled cell. Please calculate infiltration rates for two cases: for a 

cell filled with LLRW waste with the interim cover, and for a filled cell with all the layers 

of the permanent cover in place. Additionally, please calculate dose rates from a cell filled 

with LLRW waste for the three cases mentioned above: unfilled and uncovered; filled, with 

interim cover; and filled, with permanent cover. 

12. New Comment: In Section 5, Page 5-12 the Applicant states that “On-site generated 

contaminated water will be reapplied to active disposal unit(s) for dust control and compaction 

needs.” Any water generated from site activities that will be re-used and has the potential to be 

contaminated must be analyzed to determine if it will pose a risk to workers. 

Requested Action: Please provide exposure scenarios for workers, demonstrate how they will 

be protected, and how ALARA will be achieved if contaminated water is used for dust 

suppression and grout production. Also, please explain how co-mingling of CWF and FWF 

wastes will be avoided through use of on-site generated contaminated water. 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 12 of 32

13. New Comment: In Section 5, Page 5-12 the Applicant states that “Water with radionuclide 

concentrations below the limits in 10 CFR §20.2003, and in compliance with a facility TPDES 

permit, may be released to the environment.” This particular section of Part 20 applies to 

discharges of radionuclides during operations on some frequent basis to sanitary sewer, not to 

the environment, and requires a determination of a monthly average concentration not to be 

exceeded. 

Requested Action: If the Applicant is proposing releases to the environment, including dust 

suppression outside the disposal cell, please demonstrate the analyses and the regulatory criteria 

that will be used to make the determination for these types of releases. Also, please include the 

implementation cost of this program in the appropriate cost estimates. 

5.4.4 

Demonstrate that wastes designated as containerized Class A, Class B, or Class C under 30 

TAC §336.362(a) shall be disposed of in the following manner: 

5.4.4.1 

within a reinforced concrete container and within a reinforced concrete barrier, or within 

containment structures made of materials technologically equivalent or superior to 

reinforced concrete; [THSC §401.218(b)] 

1. New Comment: The Applicant asserts that it has demonstrated “the technological 

equivalency of the proposed clay envelope with a reinforced concrete containment structure in 

Appendix 5.4.4.” However, the referenced “demonstration” did not utilize appropriate 

engineering methodology, and therefore fails as a suitable demonstration.. The TCEQ believes 

an appropriate methodology for the equivalency demonstration cited in 30 TAC §336.730 (b)(1) 

would conform substantially to the procedure outlined below. 

The Applicant should design (but not necessarily construct) an engineering barrier made of a 

specified type of reinforced concrete, and demonstrate, through the execution of an appropriate 

engineering modeling methodology, that this reinforced concrete barrier, if constructed, would 

satisfy all the performance objectives of 30 TAC §336.723. If desired, the Applicant could then 

seek approval of the use of this specific reinforced concrete barrier as a containment structure in 

the proposed disposal unit. 

If the Applicant should seek to develop an engineering barrier of materials other than reinforced 

concrete, then the Applicant must develop a complete design of an engineering barrier made of 

that material and demonstrate, through the execution of an appropriate engineering modeling 

methodology, that this barrier, if constructed, would satisfy all the performance objectives of 30 

TAC §336.723. This modeling methodology must be commensurate with the methodology used 

in the engineering analysis of the reinforced concrete barrier demonstrated to satisfy the 

performance objectives. 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 13 of 32

The Applicant can only seek approval for the alternative containment barrier if execution of the 

modeling methodology demonstrates that the alternative barrier satisfies all the performance 

objectives, and is equivalent or superior to the reinforced concrete barrier. This equivalence or 

superiority will be demonstrated via comparison of the engineering modelings completed for 

each barrier. 

The Applicant should also prepare cost estimates for each of the barriers considered, so that an 

accurate estimate of the differences in cost is available, if needed, for consideration. 

Requested Action: Please provide a design for a barrier built of reinforced concrete that has 

been demonstrated through appropriate engineering modeling to meet the performance 

objectives of 30 TAC §336.723. As an alternative, provide a design for a barrier built of other 

materials that satisfies those same performance objectives and, using an equivalency 

demonstration methodology commensurate to that outlined above, has been demonstrated to be 

technologically equivalent or superior to the reinforced concrete barrier meeting those 

performance objectives. Also, please provide accurate cost estimates for any of the reinforced 

concrete and alternative barriers considered in an equivalency demonstration. 

Section 5.4.4.2 

Waste shall be disposed in such a manner that the waste can be monitored and retrieved. 


2. Comment: Volume 9B, Appendix 5.5.2-1, Radiation Safety Program and Procedures, RS- 

10, Section 1.0, Purpose, states, “Railhead operations are outside the scope of this procedure, 

CWF and FWF operation, and the license and application documents.” Waste which is accepted 

by the site for disposal at the CWF and FWF facilities, whether it comes by truck or by rail, 

should be addressed in the Radiation Safety Plan and procedures. 

Requested Action: Please provide the information previously requested. Please modify RS- 

10, Radioactive Material Receipt, Staging, and Release Surveys to include acceptance at the site 

in rail cars, or discuss why railhead operations should not be included. If appropriate, please 

provide additional Radiation Protection implementing procedures to handle waste received by 

rail car. 



10, Section 5.3, Incoming Vehicle Surveys, states that if a package is received after working 

hours, the package shall be monitored no later than three hours from the beginning of the next 

working day. 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 14 of 32

Requested Action: Procedure OP-1.0, Section 5.3.4, Access Control, states that after-hours 

arrivals may remain outside the security fence until the next working day. This does not 

provide necessary security against theft or damage. After a thorough review of SP-100, 

WCS Security Plan, no mention of after hours security could be found. In SP-100, RS-10 

OP-1.0, Administrative Procedures, and/or OP-2.0, Waste Acceptance Procedure please provide 

instructions for proper control, security and notification of packages received after work hours to 

ensure necessary security. 




10, Section 5.2.1.2, Incoming Radioactive Material Packages Contamination Survey, bullet five, 

states that if contamination levels exceed the limits in the Table RS-10-2, then the RSO and the 

Operations Supervisor will be notified immediately. However, Table RS-10-2 does not match 

the regulatory limits found in 30 TAC §336.364, Appendix G. 

Requested Action: Table RS-10-2 "Removable Radioactive Contamination Wipe Limits" 

found in Procedure RS-10, Appendix 5.5.2-1, does not match the regulatory limits found in 

30 TAC §336.364, Appendix G. Please modify the table to match the regulatory limits. 


10, Section 5.3.3.2, Outgoing Transport Release Survey, bullet one, states that the RST will 

perform a check for any unacceptable levels of contamination on the truck. However, this 

section or other sections of procedure RS-10 do not provide information as to what actions to 

take if unacceptable levels of contamination are found. 

Requested Action: After a thorough review of RS-10, the statement or similar statement 

could not be found. Please provide a statement in RS-10, similar to the statement in RS-18, 

Equipment Decontamination, Section 5.3.1.11, which states when contamination levels on a 

truck, not owned by WCS, exceed contamination limits , and how WCS will detain the vehicle 

until it can be decontaminated or stabilized, in accordance with RS-18, Equipment 

Decontamination, to prevent the spread of contamination. 



11. New Comment: Regulatory Guide 8.34 - “Monitoring Criteria and Methods to Calculate 

Occupational Radiation Doses,” Table 1, “Summary of 10 CFR Part 20 Monitoring 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 15 of 32

Requirements,” states that the use of individual monitoring devices for external dose is required 

for adults who are likely to receive an annual dose in excess of 5 rems (0.05 Sv) shallow-dose 

equivalent to any extremity. To ensure this level is not exceeded, extremity dosimeters should 

be worn where an individual could receive an annual extremity dose of 10% of the shallow-dose 

equivalent limit or 500 mrem. 

Requested Action: Please define the conditions for wearing extremity dosimeters and provide 

instructions for issuance, collection, processing, and record keeping for extremity dosimeters in 

the appropriate procedures. 


Provide an Operating and Emergency Procedures Manual that provides detailed 

procedures for receiving, handling, storing, processing, and disposal of waste. Emergency 

procedures shall include a spill detection and cleanup program for the site and associated 

transportation of waste. [THSC §§401.112(a)(12), 401.112(a)(16)] & [30 TAC §336.707(9)] 


2. Comment: There are several minor errors in the appendices dealing with emergency 

procedures and accident assessments. The following minor corrections should be made: (1) 

Volume 12, Appendix 11.7, Page 11.7-4, Section 11.7.1, states that Comanche Peak is a boiling 

water reactor. Please change this to a “pressurized water reactor”; (2) Volume 12, Appendix 

11.7, Section 11.7.4.1, Estimation of Traffic Generated by the Site, provides a doubling of 

commercial trips of 458. This should be 456; (3) Volume 12, Appendix 11.7, Section 11.7.4.4, 

Estimates of Increased Noise, Air Pollution, and Traffic, states that the projected date to open the 

site is in 1996. Please change this date accordingly; (4) Volume 9A, ERP-100, Section 4.2.4 

lists TDH/BRC. Please change to TDSHS; and (5) Volume 9A, ERP-100, Section 1.5 appears to 

have an inaccurate 2000 population for the City of Eunice. 

Requested Action: Items (1) through (3) were addressed in Revision 9 of the application. 

Please review and modify items (4) and (5) listed above, as appropriate. (NUREG-1300, 

Environmental Standard Review Plan for the review of a license application for a Low-level 

Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, SRP 4.9.3, Transportation Accidents, Section 2, Purpose 

and Scope). 


4. Comment: Volume 12, Appendix 11.7, LLW Transportation Impact Assessment, is primarily 

based on information and calculations performed by Rogers & Associates for a previous license 


Requested Action: The Applicant responded to this comment and described the method 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 16 of 32

used to adapt the Rogers & Associates document to the proposed WCS site. However, only 

the segments used for determining scaling factors were provided. Actual scaling factors 

and information concerning how these factors were determined were not provided in 

Appendix 11.7. Please provide additional information which would allow an independent 

verification of the scaling factors used to modify the RADTRAN transportation analysis. 

Please also provide a copy of the original Rogers and Associates document which was used 

as the basis for the WCS calculations. Please discuss how the scaling factors were 

developed and their applicability, taking into account the differences in nuclide-specific 

concentrations, major city populations, route information, and associated exposure times. 

(NUREG-1300, Environmental Standard Review Plan for the review of a license application for 

a Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, SRP 4.9.3, Transportation Accidents, Section 

2, Purpose and Scope). 

5. Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, ERP-100, Sections 4.2.4, 4.3, 5.3.3, 5.4.2, 5.4.5, 5.8, 

6.3, and 7.1 state that portions of the Emergency Plan will be continuously updated for various 

reasons such as changes to offsite contacts, descriptions of emergency equipment, or changes to 

the names of emergency responders. 

Requested Action: Attachment A - Emergency Contacts is still contained within ERP-100, 

Consolidated Emergency Plan. To avoid frequent and time-consuming license amendments, 

we recommend that this information be contained in implementing procedure EP-1.0. (Reg. 

Guide 3.67 - Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Materials 

Facilities, Section A, Introduction, paragraph 8). 


7. Comment: Volume 9, Appendix 8.0-5, Accident Analysis, Section 8.0-5.3, Explosion or 

Fire, p 8.0-5-12, paragraph 2, provides committed effective dose equivalent values at various 

distances from the accident scene. However, off-site dose equivalents to the whole body and to 

the lungs for an individual at the site boundary are requested so that the TCEQ may evaluate the 

site against the criteria discussed in NUREG-1199, Section 8.4. NUREG-1199 recommends that 

if the maximum potential offsite releases yield dose equivalents greater than 0.01 rem to the 

whole body and 0.05 rem to the lungs, the Applicant should develop emergency procedures that 

include interaction with local and State authorities and appropriate notification of affected 

populations. Reg. Guide 3.67 recommends that exposure levels at the site boundary should be 

treated as the levels potentially affecting persons offsite. 

Requested Action: Appendix 8.0-5, Section 8.0-5.3, p. 8.0-5-13, provides lung dose to 

workers at the Compact Waste Facility and Federal Waste Facility at 10 meters. However, 

the doses were not provided, as requested, for the site boundary. Please provide the 

maximum credible accident dose equivalents to the whole body (i.e., committed effective dose 

equivalent) and to the lungs for an individual at the site boundary. (NUREG-1199, Standard 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 17 of 32

Format and Content of a license application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 

Facility, Section 8.4, Emergency Planning, p 8.5 and Reg. Guide 3.67 - Standard Format and 

Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Materials Facilities, Section 2.1, Description 

of Postulated Accidents). 

8. Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, Operational Procedures and Plans, ERP-100, 

Consolidated Emergency Plan, does not contain detailed drawings of the emergency 

preparedness features described in the Emergency Plan. 

Requested Action: The Applicant provided drawings showing emergency preparedness 

features in Appendix 5.5-1, Emergency Preparedness Features. However, several of the 

figures had features which were difficult to read or unreadable, due to the legend symbols. 

Greater detail concerning how the Figure 2, Access/Egress Control Point will be set up is 

necessary. Also, will the Mobile Emergency Equipment Trailer require a power 

connection? If so, please provide the location(s) where the mobile trailer could be 

stationed. Please state who will maintain the mobile emergency equipment trailer. Please 

revise the maps to clearly show the information listed above or provide a justification for not 

including the information. (Reg. Guide 3.67 - Standard Format and Content for Emergency 

Plans for Fuel Cycle and Materials Facilities, Section 1.2, Description of Facility and Site and 

Section and C1.3, Description of Area Near the Site). 


Consolidated Emergency Plan does not provide a map showing locations of population centers 

and facilities of interest, as recommended in Reg. Guide 3.67, Section 1.3, Description of Area 

near the Site. ERP-100, Section 1.5, states that cities are shown on the 10-mile and the 50-mile 

radius map contained in Appendix A. However, those maps were not found. 

Requested Action: The Applicant provided drawings showing emergency preparedness 

features in the ERP-100, Appendix A-Maps. However, these drawings were difficult to 

read or unreadable. Many of the features discussed in Reg. Guide 3.67, Section 1.3, were 

not provided such as: (1) Locations of population centers (towns, cities, office buildings, 

factories, schools, arenas, stadiums, etc.); (2) Locations of facilities that could present 

potential protective action problems (schools, arenas, stadiums, prisons, nursing homes, 

hospitals); (3) Identification of primary routes for access of emergency equipment, as well 

as potential impediments to traffic flow (rivers, drawbridges, railroad grade crossings, 

etc.); (4) Locations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, and other offsite emergency 

support organizations (specify whether qualified to handle exposure to radioactive 

contamination or toxic chemicals); (5) The sites of potential emergency significance (e.g., 

liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) terminals, chemical plants, pipelines, electrical 

transformers, and underground cables); (6) Identification of the types of terrain and the 

land use patterns around the site. Please revise the maps to clearly show the information 

listed above. (Reg. Guide 3.67 - Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 18 of 32

Cycle and Materials Facilities, Section 1.2, Description of Facility and Site and Section and 

C1.3, Description of Area Near the Site) 

10. Comment: The proposed facility is situated adjacent to the boundary between Texas and 

the State of New Mexico. NUREG-0654, Part E. Contiguous-Jurisdiction Governmental 

Emergency Planning, p. 21, recommends contiguous-jurisdiction governmental emergency 

planning in the case where a State boundary is involved within the Emergency Planning Zone 

(EPZ). 

Requested Action: The TCEQ has contacted the New Mexico Environmental Department 

(NMED), Radiological Control Bureau. At the current time, the State of New Mexico 

requests to be notified of any radiological emergencies which, if occurring, could impact 

their state. Please include in EP-01, Emergency Response, notification of the New Mexico 

Department of Public Safety of all accidents where radiological material may affect the 

State of New Mexico. Please use the Department’s after hours radiation emergency 

number. 


Consolidated Emergency Plan, Section 5.2, Accident Assessment, page 22, discusses the use of 

real-time meteorological data and forecasts to conduct accident consequence analysis. However, 

the Emergency Plan does not provide a description of the primary and backup systems for 

obtaining meteorological measurements. 

Requested Action: Please add a Meteorological Data section to the Emergency Plan. 

Please provide the primary and backup systems for obtaining meteorological 

measurements. A backup system should be in place, but this system does not need to be an 

on-site meteorological source. Meteorological data may be obtained from nearby stations 

(e.g., Hobbs, NM or Andrews, TX) but methods, including phone numbers, and/or internet 

meteorological data sites, need to be provided. All required HOTSPOT © meteorological 

inputs, including method for determining wind stability class, need to be addressed. In 

addition, remote monitoring and readout of the on-site meteorological system is necessary. 

The Met One Instruments, Integrated Data Acquisition Unit has the capability for the 

addition of a modem for remote access of the datalogger. This modem or other remote 

access mechanism will need to be installed if it has not already been installed. Please 

provide a description of the primary and backup systems for obtaining meteorological 

measurements. (Reg. Guide 3.67 - Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel 

Cycle and Materials Facilities, Section C5.2, Assessment Actions) 


Consolidated Emergency Plan, Section 5.2, Accident Assessment, page 23, states that common 

communications shall exist between all personnel involved in the consequence assessment. 

However, the Emergency Plan does not provide for communications between the WCS 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 19 of 32

individual responsible for making offsite dose projections and the TDSHS Radiological 

Licensing Division and TCEQ Radioactive Material Licensing. 

Requested Action: A statement has been added to ERP-100, Section 5.3, Accident 

Assessment, for the RSO to communicate offsite dose projection information with the 

TDSHS and TCEQ. However, the contact numbers for the Department of State Health 

Services should be the Emergency Radiological Help Line number or (512) 458-7460. 

Please change the telephone number to the Emergency Radiological Help Line number. 

(Reg. Guide 3.67 - Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and 

Materials Facilities, Section C3.3, Information To Be Communicated, first paragraph) 



Consolidated Emergency Plan, Section 6.1, Emergency Operations Center does not specify the 

criteria for evacuation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). It is also not apparent from 

the description in this section whether the secondary EOC will have the same capabilities as the 

primary EOC. 

Requested Action: The site map in Appendix A is not legible and the location of the 

primary and backup Emergency Operations Centers cannot be determined. Please 

appropriately label all maps in Appendix A. In addition, it is highly recommended that 

predetermined evacuation dose and indoor airborne concentration levels be determined to 

aid the Emergency Coordinator in determining when to evacuate the EOC. Please provide 

legible maps in Appendix A and also provide the criteria for evacuation of the EOCs. (Reg. 

Guide 3.67-Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Materials 

Facilities, Section 6.1, Command Center) 



17. Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, ERP-100, Section 4.0, Responsibilities, of ERP-100 

deviates from Regulatory Guide 3.67, in that it provides a list of responsibilities for Emergency 

Response Team (ERT) members which do not correspond to specific emergency activities. The 

result is a list of generalized responsibilities which may not effectively address emergency 

planning activities. In addition, the Emergency Coordinator is left with a large list of duties, 

which one person might not be able to effectively handle. 

Requested Action: In the response to TNOD1, the Applicant states that EP-1.0, 

Attachment E, will be modified to address staffing of the appropriate ERT functional 

groups based on facility operations prior to facility start up. Please provide this 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 20 of 32

information. Please review the site’s emergency organization to ensure groups assigned to 

the functional areas listed in Reg. Guide 3.67 are adequately staffed. Please indicate the 

basis for personnel assignment for both working and non-working time periods. For each group, 

describe duties, authority, and interface with other groups and outside assistance. (Reg. Guide 

3.67 - Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Materials 

Facilities, Section 4.2.2, Onsite Staff Emergency Assignments) 

18. Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, ERP-100, Section 5.1.4, Public Information 

Program, states that the Emergency Coordinator will establish a liaison that will communicate 

real time emergency event information directly to the WCS General Manger. It also states that 

under certain conditions the WCS Corporate Office will disseminate emergency related public 

information. Reg. Guide 3.67 recommends that the Applicant describe public information 

arrangements and where the public and media can obtain information in an emergency. 

Requested Action: Please provide the phone number(s) or other locations where the public 

and media can obtain information in an emergency. (Reg. Guide 3.67 - Standard Format and 

Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Materials Facilities, Section 4.4, Coordination 

with Participating Government Agencies) 

19. Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, ERP-100, Section 2.2, Detection of Accidents, 

states that accident information will be used to decide whether a request for assistance should be 

made to other offsite agencies under mutual aid agreements. Section 3.2 of the plan also states 

that notification of offsite agencies may be accomplished as specified by mutual agreement. 

Section 4.3, Local Offsite Assistance states that documentation of the agreements reached with 

these organizations is presented in Appendix D. These letters of agreement were not found. 

Requested Action: Two medical center mutual-aid agreements were provided by WCS in 

Attachment D to ERP-100, Consolidated Emergency Plan. WCS states that similar 

agreements are being sought with local fire fighting groups. Please provide the remaining 

mutual aid agreements for all local offsite organizations and with government agencies that 

could be called upon to respond to an emergency at the WCS site. Note that these should 

include local sheriff offices, the TDSHS, and TCEQ, in addition to local fire fighting 

groups. (Reg. Guide 3.67 - Standard Format and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle 

and Materials Facilities, Section 4.3, Local Offsite Assistance to Facility). 


21. Comment: Emergency response may require the timely calculation of projected offsite 

radiation exposure. Regulatory guidance states that the Applicant should describe provisions for 

projecting such exposures. An important consideration in making dose projections is 

determining the correct atmospheric stability class for input for computer modeling. 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 21 of 32

Requested Action: Please provide method(s) for determining the atmospheric stability 

class for performing dose projections when the primary meteorological system is available 

and when only the backup system is available. This information should be contained in the 

appropriate emergency response implementing procedure for use by emergency responders in the 

event of an accident. (Reg. Guide 3.67 , Section 5.2, Assessment Actions) 


23. Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, ERP-100, Section 5.3.1, Mitigation of Fires states 

that after a fire has been extinguished, firewater is collected and sampled. 

Requested Action: WCS’s TNOD1 response states that equipment will be available on site 

to erect temporary berms across drainage ditches and around emergency areas, as 

necessary. However, ERP-100, Section 5.3.1, Mitigation of Fires, and EP-1.0, Emergency 

Response, Section 5.8.1, Fires, do not discuss or provide precautions concerning the use of 

temporary berms and other methods to control the spread of contaminated water. Please 

discuss, in the appropriate plan and procedure(s), actions to be taken to prevent the spread 

of contaminated firewater and aid in the collection of firewater. Please provide methods to 

minimize the amount of contaminated fire water. (Reg. Guide 3.67 - Standard Format and 

Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Materials Facilities, Section 9, Recovery and 

Plant Restoration) 

24. Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, ERP-100, Attachment E - EP-1.0, Emergency 

Response, Section 5.4, provides instructions for the Emergency Coordinator to instruct Security 

to actuate the appropriate alarm and to determine whether to initiate an evacuation. This Section 

states that the evacuation will proceed from the administration building southwest along the road 

to the guard house. However, Attachment E - EP-1.0, Section 5.8.6.1, Releases of Radioactive 

Material, and 5.8.7.1, Radioactive Material Spills, do not mention monitoring and 

decontamination of evacuees. In addition, the evacuation route from the Compact and Federal 

Waste Facilities are not shown and the location where decontamination and monitoring of 

personnel and vehicles evacuating the site is not provided. 

Requested Action: Please provide directions in the EP implementing procedure for 

monitoring and decontamination of personnel and vehicles exiting the site during an 

evacuation. Also, provide a reference in EP-1.0 to the RP procedures which will be used in 

emergency situations for monitoring and decontamination. Please show the evacuation 

routes from the Compact and Federal Waste facilities and the location where monitoring 

and decontamination of evacuees will take place. Please label all figures and maps in ERP- 

100 and EP-1.0 and ensure they are legible. (Reg. Guide 3.67 - Standard Format and Content 

for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Materials Facilities, Section 5.4.1.1, Personnel 

Evacuation and Accountability) 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 22 of 32




28. New Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, ERP-100, Attachment E- EP-1.0 - Emergency 

Response is an EP procedure for use by the emergency organization. However, it appears that 

this EP is an integral part of the emergency plan and would require an emergency plan revision 

to reflect frequently changing phone numbers and emergency organization members. In 

addition, this procedure does not have a review signature cover sheet or table of contents to aid 

emergency workers in quickly finding required information. 

Requested Action: Please provide a cover sheet and table of contents for EP-1.0 - Emergency 

Response procedure. 

29. New Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, ERP-100, Attachment E - EP-1.0, Emergency 

Response, Section 5.5, states that the EC shall determine and summon the appropriate personnel 

to serve on the Emergency Response Team. However, little information is included in EP-1.0 

concerning the emergency response teams and some of the information provided is confusing. 

For instance, the statement in EP-1.0, Section 5.5, that the RSO has team responsibility for any 

emergency response actions involving, or potentially involving, radioactive material. Does this 

mean that the RSO will be on the ERT or will he/she form and brief the team? Communication 

arrangements with the ERTs is not discussed in the EP. (Reg. Guide 3.67 - Standard Format 

and Content for Emergency Plans for Fuel Cycle and Materials Facilities, Section 4.2.2, On-site 

Staff Emergency Assignments) 

Requested Action: Please provide additional information in EP-1.0 which describes forming, 

briefing, communicating with, and debriefing of Emergency Response teams. 


Provide a description of the radiation safety program for control and monitoring of 

contamination to personnel, vehicles, equipment, buildings, and the disposal site. Both 

routine operations and accidents shall be addressed. The program description shall 

include procedures, instrumentation, facilities, and equipment. [30 TAC §336.707(8)] 




Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 23 of 32








11. Comment: Volume 8, Appendix 3.3-1, Support Buildings, provides descriptions and 

drawings of the WCS LLRW Operations and Disposal Area Gate buildings. This appendix does 

not provide details concerning how these or other onsite facilities, will be used to implement the 

Radiation Protection Program. Please consider the recommendations of NUREG-1200, SRP 7.4, 

Radiation Protection Program, Section 4.3.2, Equipment, Instrumentation, and Facilities, Item 

(5), which recommends that the minimum radiation protection support facilities and areas should 

include: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

portable instrument calibration areas and easily accessible storage areas; 

specific use area designed for personnel decontamination, equipped with necessary 

monitors, and located to expedite separate decontamination of male and female 

personnel; 

facilities used specifically for cleaning, sanitizing, repairing, and decontaminating 

vehicles, tools, waste casks, personnel protective clothing, and equipment.; 

change room located between labeled clean and contaminated areas; 

entrance and exit control points designated for restricted areas that include caution signs, 

labels, and signals in accordance with 30 TAC §336.325, §336.326, and §336.327; 

storage and control capability for licensed materials in unrestricted areas in accordance 

with 30 TAC §336.323 and 30 TAC §336.324; and 

at least one readily accessible radiation protection station used for storing radiation 

survey equipment, respiratory protective equipment, personnel-monitoring equipment, 

and contamination control supplies. 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 24 of 32

Requested Action: The staging and decontamination pads proposed in the application are 

inadequate to prevent the spread of contamination to the environment, to protect waste 

shipments being staged and demurraged during inclement weather; and to protect workers 

and provide a controlled environment to safely handle many possible waste shipments. 

Please provide designs and construction plans for adequate structures and buildings to 

stage, demurrage, and decontaminate waste containers, vehicles, personnel, tools, and 

equipment for the CWF and FWF. Please incorporate the elements listed above in the 

design of these facilities. 

12. Comment: Appendices in Volumes 8, 8A, 8B, and 9, provide information concerning WCS 

LLRW disposal facility construction, operations equipment, and cast-in-place concrete layer. 

These appendices do not discuss ALARA design features which would help minimize personnel 

radiation exposure. NUREG-1199, SRP 7.3, Radiation Protection Design Features, 

recommends that the Applicant provide illustrative examples of the facility ALARA design 

features that reduce the need for maintenance and other operations in radiation fields, reduce 

radiation sources where operations must be performed, allow quick entry and easy access, 

provide remote operation capability, or reduce the time required for work in radiation fields, and 

any other features that reduce radiation exposure of personnel. Design features should include 

the methods for reducing the production, distribution, and retention of contaminated system 

components through design methods, material selection, water chemistry, decontamination 

procedures, etc., and should provide the location of sampling ports, instrumentation, and control 

panels. 

Requested Action: The Applicant provided a discussion of ALARA design features in 

Appendix 8.0-4, Worker Dose Assessment, Section 11.0. However, this section does not 

address several important proposed radiological systems. ALARA design features will be 

required for five additional on-site systems: (1) leachate collection and sampling system; 

(2) leak detection system; (3) special design features to handle high source activity wastes; 

(4) shielding and (5) ventilation system(s) in the required compact and federal waste 

staging, demurraged, and decontamination buildings. Several examples of types of 

ALARA considerations to be reviewed should include: (1) possible gamma ray streaming 

caused by the leachate or leak detection system piping; (2) buildup of radon or other gases 

in stand pipes; (3) additional shielding for tanks and sumps containing radioactive liquids; 

(4) remote control crane operations or hot cells for transferring very high radioactivity 

waste; (5) methods to minimize dose to workers during HEPA filter inspection and/or 

change out; and others. Please provide a discussion of ALARA reviews and design features 

for these systems and incorporate any new or additional radiation dose reducing features 

into the facility design and procedures. (NUREG-1199, Standard Format and Content of a 

License Application of a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, Section 7.1, Facility 

Design Features, Page 7-2 and NUREG-1200, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License 

Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, SRP 7.3, Radiation Protection 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 25 of 32

Design Features and Operating Procedures, Section 4.3.1, Facility Design Features, pages 7.3- 

7,8, & 9). 

13. Comment: Volume 9B, RSP-100, Radiation Safety Program, Section 9.1, Instrumentation 

for Radiological Monitoring, discusses general instrument selection criteria and calibration 

requirements. However, this section does not discuss laboratory facilities nor does it specify the 

design-basis radiation level in the counting room as recommended in NUREG-1199, Standard 

Format and Content of a License Application of a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 

Facility, Section 7.3, Facility Design Features, page 7-3, first paragraph. 

Requested Action: Because the sensitivity of instruments is dependent upon the general 

background level in the counting room, extremely low background levels are required for 

instruments to read in the pCi/g level for environmental samples. The response stated that 

the counting room design basis radiation level was taken to be 50 to 60 mrem/hr. This is 

far above an acceptable counting room design basis radiation level. Please reevaluate the 

design basis radiation level and either add shielding or move the counting room to a lower 

background area, as necessary. Please provide the results of your study including proposed 

conclusions and required actions. 



16. Comment: Volume 8, Appendix 3.3-1, Support Facilities, provides mechanical system 

drawings for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning for the Operations Building and Gate 

Building. The drawings and text in this appendix do not describe the personnel protection 

features for building ventilation systems where habitability is to be maintained in the case of an 

airborne release of radioactivity or other emergency. Please consider the guidance found in 

NUREG-1199, Section 7.3, Ventilation, which recommends that the Applicant discuss those 

aspects of the ventilation design that relate to removing airborne radioactivity from sources of 

radiation inside normally occupied buildings (e.g., decontamination. areas, change rooms, etc.) 

and into effluent control systems. The NUREG recommends that the Applicant discuss those 

aspects of the systems that relate to controlling the concentration of radioactivity including filter 

alarms and remote readout. The NUREG also recommends that the Applicant provide an 

illustrative example of air cleaning system design and criteria established for the change-out of 

air filters and absorbers in the air cleaning system. 

Requested Action: The Applicant stated in its response to TNOD1 that the ventilation 

systems for the proposed support facilities, LLRW Operations building and the Disposal 

Gate building, will not be needed because these facilities will not be used for waste handling 

or housing of waste shipments. Instead, WCS proposes to use outdoor staging and 

decontamination pads. However, the staging and decontamination pads proposed in the 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 26 of 32

application are inadequate to prevent the spread of contamination to the environment, to 

protect waste shipments being staged and demurraged during inclement weather, and to 

protect workers and provide a controlled environment to safely handle many possible 

waste shipments. The applicant will need to design and construct adequate structures and 

buildings to stage, demurrage, and decontaminate waste containers, vehicles, personnel, 

tools, and equipment for the CWF and FWF. Please incorporate the elements listed above 

in the design of these facilities. These buildings are to be designed with a HEPA filtration 

ventilation system which provides a negative pressure inside the building to help ensure 

airborne contamination generated in waste transfer or decontamination does not escape to 

the environment or to clean areas of the building. An effluent monitoring system shall be 

incorporated into the design with remote readout and the ability to either alarm and/or 

automatically isolate the building should the containment system fail. (NUREG-1199, 

Standard Format and Content of a License Application of a Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Disposal Facility, Section 7.3, Ventilation, page 7-3) 


18. New Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, Operational Procedures and Plans, Procedure 

HS-10.0, Respiratory Protection Program, has been added to the appendix. However, this 

procedure addresses material in several other procedures but does not reference these 

procedures. These other respiratory protection procedures include: HS-6.0, Issue, Return, and 

Control of Respiratory Protection Equipment; HS-7.0, Respirator Maintenance and Cleaning; 

and HS-8.0, Respiratory Protection Fit Test. 

Requested Action: Please reference the procedures listed above in the appropriate section of 

HS-10. provide a description of the WCS Respiratory Protection Training Program. 

(NUREG/CR-3343 Recommended Radiation Protection Practices for Low-Level Waste Disposal 

Sites, Section 3.5, Respiratory Protection Training) 

19. New Comment: The list of personal protective clothing described in Procedure HS-4 does 

not include anti-contamination clothing for skin, head, hand, and shoes. The program appears to 

be specific for hazardous chemical contamination and not radiological contamination. Chemical 

suits are typically plastics which are only worn in very highly contaminated or wet radiological 

environments. Use of plastic suits severely limits the ability of workers to work for longer 

periods of time in hot environments. Cooling apparatuses are not always conveniently used in 

outdoor situations. Cotton cloth suits, head covers, and shoe covers are typically worn and 

should be available as an option for workers to wear. Paper suits are usually hot and typically 

can not stand up to the rigors of handling waste and could tear. Paper suits should not be used. 

(NUREG-1200, SRP 7.4, Radiation Protection Program, Section 4.3.2(4), Equipment, 

Instrumentation, and Facilities, Page 7.4-9) 

Requested Action: Please provide a list of protective clothing that will be maintained at the 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 27 of 32

facility that include cloth PPE. (NUREG-1200, SRP 7.4, Radiation Protection Program, Section 

4.3.2(4), Equipment, Instrumentation, and Facilities, Page 7.4-9) 

20. New Comment: NUREG/CR-3343, Recommended Radiation Protection Practices for 

Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites, Section 5.0, Respiratory Protection states that the site’s 

respiratory protection program should be evaluated to ensure program effectiveness. However, 

quality assurance procedure QA-19.1, Audits, does not specifically mention that an audit be 

performed on the Respiratory Protection Program. HS-10.0, Respiratory Protection Program, 

also does not describe how the program’s effectiveness is assured. 

Requested Action: Please include in QA-18.1, Audits, Section 4.3.2.3, and/or other appropriate 

location(s), for the Industrial Health and Safety Program, that the effectiveness of the respiratory 

program will be reviewed annually. (NUREG/CR-3343, Recommended Radiation Protection 

Practices for Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites, Section 5.0, Respiratory Protection). 


Provide the facility’s security plans. [THSC §401.112(a)(14)] 

1. Comment: Volume 9A of the WCS Application, SP-100, Security Plan, Section 7.2, 

Vulnerability Survey, states that the facility manager, in consultation with the Health & Safety 

Manager shall determine the extent of perimeter controls based on a comprehensive security 

survey. NUREG-1200, SRP 8.7, Physical Security, outlines security measures related to 

assuring security (or preventing vulnerability) of controlled areas. The following are examples 

of components that may be considered: 

• Access controls to the facility (e.g., barriers and fences, controlled areas, access control 

points for personnel and vehicle access into controlled radiological areas, secure storage 

locations and their required specifications, and locations for posting of signs and 

examples of signs to be posted); 

• Means for detecting unauthorized intrusion (e.g., security guard rounds, intrusion 

detection system, and protective lighting); 

• Provisions for monitoring access to controlled areas (e.g., posting security guards, alarm 

and video surveillance equipment); and 

• Communication systems related to security. 

Requested Action: The Security Plan provided in the WCS application is generic and does 

not provide sufficient detail needed for the TCEQ review. For instance, the plan should 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 28 of 32

specify the types of communication devices to be deployed, their number, and their 

location. The same level of specificity is necessary for intrusion detection capability, 

lighting, alarms, video surveillance, barriers, access control points, and secure storage 

locations. In addition, SP-100, Security Plan, Section 7.2, Vulnerability Survey, states that 

the facility manager, in consultation with the Health & Safety Manager, shall determine 

the extent of perimeter controls based on a comprehensive security survey. Please provide 

the security assessment that defines requirements for perimeter and other controls 

necessary to adequately protect the facility. Please provide on Sheets C0.l (Facilities 

Layout Plan), C0.15 (Security Gate Locations), C0.12 (Finished Site Grading,) or separate 

drawing the locations of security system components to include intrusion detection systems, 

access control system alarms, video surveillance cameras, lighting, and other security 

features. It appears from the sheets listed above that there are no roadways along the 

outer perimeter fence that allow security patrols and verification of fence integrity. 

Roadways should be provided along perimeter fencing. In addition, only a single security 

fence prevents access to the facility. This fence is relatively short (7 feet) and does not have 

barbed or razor wire on it. In addition, the fence does not have a concrete base running 

underneath it to prevent burrowing by animals. Please discuss the appropriateness of the 

security fence design and/or provide upgrades which would improve the ability of the 

security fence to prevent or deter site intrusion. As part of the assessment, please provide one 

or more layouts specific to physical security at the site. (NUREG-1200, SRP 8.7, Physical 

Security, Section 2.0, Areas of Review, Page 8.7-1). 


3. Comment: Volume 1A, Section 10.3.12, Operators, lists additional WCS employees which 

includes four security guards. There apparently is no description of the lines of communication 

for the security organization and or how it may be staffed during the week. 

Requested Action: A schedule for security personnel must be developed and presented as 

part of the application. Please ensure sufficient security staff to handle patrols, the entry 

gate and other security gates as various operational situations may call for. Please describe 

the on-duty staffing levels to be maintained throughout the week and on weekends. (NUREG- 

1200, SRP 8.7, Physical Security, Section 2.0, Areas of Review, p 8.7-1) 

4. Comment: Neither Volume 1A, Section 10, Personnel or Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, 

Operational Procedures and Plans, SP-100, Security Plan, Section 11.0, Training, provides 

training and experience requirements for security employees. Please consider whether security 

personnel will be currently licensed Peace Officer with a certificate or advanced certificate from 

the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. 

Requested Action: Specific annual security training beyond general employee training will 

be necessary. This is needed since the site does not currently have a qualified Security 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 29 of 32

Manager and because the Health & Safety Manager and the Operations Manager, to 

whom security personnel report, do not have prior security training or experience. Prior 

to an individual being assigned to the position of security guard, TCEQ recommends that 

personnel have peace officer credentials or have experience at a large operational nuclear 

facility (i.e., nuclear power plant or large LLRW facility). If this level of training is not 

feasible, then we recommend that WCS contract with an appropriate security agency to 

provide the necessary trained and experienced personnel. Another option is that WCS hire 

an appropriately security contractor to provide periodic nuclear facility security training 

to WCS security personnel. The Health & Safety Manager and the Operations Manager 

should attend this training. Please provide additional training and experience requirements for 

current and new security employees and what additional training they may receive once they are 

hired by WCS. Also specify requirements for verification of credentials and background checks 

of security personnel in SP-100, Security Plan, or other appropriate location in the 

application. (NUREG-1200, SRP 8.7, Physical Security, Section 2.0, Areas of Review, page 

8.7-1) 

5. Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, Operational Procedures and Plans, SP-100, Security 

Plan, Section 4.0, Responsibilities, does not address the liaison with off-site law enforcement 

authorities. 

Requested Action: Please designate who will be acting as the primary liaison and the 

backup liaison in coordinating with law enforcement authorities that will be providing 

assistance in responding to security threats. (NUREG-1200, SRP 8.7, Physical Security, 

Section 4.3, Regulatory Evaluation Criteria, (3) Response Requirements, page 8.7-3) 




9. Comment: Descriptions of how the plant operations staff will interact with the security staff 

during a security event are apparently missing from the application. For example, intruder 

detection is one of the prime functions of the security plan; however, the plan does not discuss 

specific actions that security or operations personnel would take in the event that intruder(s) 

were encountered, other than to say that the security guards shall respond to incidents and shall 

establish a security perimeter. 

Requested Action: SP-100, Section 5.8 states that security or other site personnel shall 

notify the site manager and operations supervisor immediately of any potential security 

events. Because supervisory personnel are not required to be trained in security matters, 

predetermined actions should be developed in the Security Plan or in implementing 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 30 of 32

procedures to address potential security threats. Please provide security procedures which 

describe specific responses of security, health physics, and other staff in various security events. 

(NUREG-1200, SRP 8.7, Physical Security, Section 2.0(1)(d), page 8.7-1). 

10. Comment: Volume 9A, Appendix 5.5, Operational Procedures and Plans, SP-100, 

Security Plan, Section 4.0, Security Guards, states that security guards are responsible for 

conducting and documenting security surveillance. However, details concerning periodic patrols 

and methods to document their findings apparently are not included in the application. 

Requested Action: A daily facility surveillance and weekly perimeter surveillance are 

inadequate to either deter or to identify intrusion events into the facility. It is 

recommended that facility surveillance and a patrol along the facility fence be performed 

at least once per shift. Periodic patrols should be conducted every four hours during nonworking 

hours inside and outside the restricted area, including buildings and equipment 

storage areas, to search for any signs of unauthorized access to the site or any buildings. 

Please review NUREG-1200, SRP 8.7, Physical Security, Section 2.0, Areas of Review, page 

8.7-1, and revise, as appropriate. 



Provide a description of the operational monitoring programs, including radioactive and 

chemical characteristics; and plan for taking corrective measures if migration of 

radionuclides or chemical constituents is indicated. Monitoring data shall be sufficient to 

evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts during the operation of the facility 

and to enable the evaluation of long-term effects and the need for mitigative measures. 

Demonstrate the capability of the monitoring system to provide early warning of releases 

of radionuclides and chemical constituents before they leave the disposal site boundary. [30 

TAC §336.708(a)(10) & [30 TAC §336.731(b)] 






Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 31 of 32

6. New Comment: Some pagination in Volume 1A, Section 5, between pages 5-23 and 5-49 is 

missing. Between these pages are three pages designated “11-46” through “11-48, ” apparently 

from Volume 1A, Section 11. 

Requested Action: Please correct and revise the pagination. 

7. New Comment: Federal Guidance in NUREG-1388, Environmental Monitoring of Low- 

Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, states on page 4, “Surface water data are needed 

during the preoperational phase . . . Field measurements will include . . . water quality in regard 

to radiological and nonradiological components.” On page 6, the NUREG states, “During the 

operational phase, surface water sampling should be conducted in areas of runoff from active 

operations . . . Sample analyses should be similar to the ground water sample analyses during the 

operational phase.” The Applicant’s Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (REMP) 

mentions on pages 8 and 10 in Volume 7A, Appendix 2.10.1-2 that it intends to conduct surface 

water sampling of the “storm water system,” and that samples of runoff water will be collected 

“as necessary.” 

Requested Action: Please discuss in greater detail the plans for surface water sampling at the 

proposed site. Include specifics on sampling locations, for example, Baker Spring and nearby 

playas. Also, propose a list of sampling constituents and associated procedures including 

specifics about sampling frequency. 

8. New Comment: Federal guidance in NUREG 1200, SRP 2.9, Section 4.3.2, page 2.9-9 

states, “Instruments and monitoring devices for field surveys and field sampling should have 

appropriate range, accuracy, and sensitivity to adequately measure direct radiation and to 

monitor relevant radiological and nonradiological constituents during routine disposal 

operations. The analytical capabilities should be adequate to detect specific radiological and 

nonradiological indicators...” The application in Volume 9A, Procedure OP-7.0, Attachment A, 

“Air Sampling,” Section 5.3.3.3 suggests using a particulate sampler flow rate of 2.5 cfm, which 

would be considered low-volume air sampling. 

Requested Action: Please provide calculations which demonstrate that low-volume air 

samplers will have sufficient sensitivity to detect radionuclides of concern, for example, using a 

sampling duration equation. 

Attachment 5 


1/30/2006 Page 32 of 32

Attachment 6 



Closure 


The Applicant shall provide a de<strong>commission</strong>ing and site closure and stabilization plan, 

including those design features, activities, and preparations which are intended to facilitate 

disposal site closure and to eliminate the need for ongoing active maintenance after closure 

and an estimated date of site closure which is to be updated as required. [H&SC 

§401.112(a)(13)] & [30 TAC §§336.708(a)(11), 336.719] 

1. Comment: The de<strong>commission</strong>ing plan as required by 30 TAC §336.708(a)(11) submitted by 

the Applicant in Volume 9, Appendix 6.1.1-1 is a brief general discussion and is incomplete. At 

a minimum, the applicable requirements of 30 TAC §336 Subchapter G should be met. For 

guidance in developing the site-specific de<strong>commission</strong>ing plan, please consider NUREG- 

1199, Standard Format and Content of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Disposal Facility, Section 5.2 Decontamination and De<strong>commission</strong>ing. Please also 

consider that upon request for license termination, the licensee may be required to modify the 

de<strong>commission</strong>ing plan and tailor it to actual site conditions and the proposed activities to 

accomplish de<strong>commission</strong>ing. 

Requested Action: Please provide information previously requested. Please review and 

provide appropriate modification to the submitted de<strong>commission</strong>ing plan or provide justification 

why the current information is sufficient. 


The Applicant shall demonstrate that the site design features are directed toward longterm 

isolation and avoidance of the need for continuing active maintenance after site 

closure so that there is reasonable assurance that the performance objectives of 30 TAC 

§336.723 will be met. [30 TAC §336.729(a)] 


Attachment 6 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 1

Attachment 7 



Post Closure and Institutional Care 


The Applicant shall provide a plan to observe, monitor, and carry out necessary 

maintenance and repairs at the disposal site until the site closure is complete and the 

license is transferred by the <strong>commission</strong> in accordance with 30 TAC §336.721 (relating to 

Transfer of License to Custodial Agency). [30 TAC §336.720(a)] 


2. Comment: The application in Volume 9, Appendix 7.3.2, page 7.3.2-11 discusses postclosure 

monitoring, but does not appear to include consideration of erosion downslope from the 

facility that might indicate a potential long-term erosion necessitating possible maintenance or 

repair of the facility. 

Requested Action: The Applicant’s response states that “. . . the Section will be modified to 

include observations and monitoring to be imposed downslope of the facility.” This 

modification could not be located. Also, a word search on the web copy of the application, 

found no electronic link to Appendix 7.3.2. (now in Volume 10). Please provide the stated 

modification, a reference to where in Appendix 7.3.2 the modification was made, and 

provide a web link to a .pdf file for this appendix. Please discuss possible erosion and its 

potential impact in any plans to observe, monitor, and carry out necessary maintenance and 

repairs at the disposal site until the site closure is complete and the license is transferred by the 

<strong>commission</strong>. 

3. New Comment: In Volume 1A, page 7-5A, the Applicant states that “releases to the 

environment will be made in accordance with a TPDES permit and the release levels specified in 

10 CRF 20.2003.” 

Requested Action: Federal rule in 10 CFR 20.2003 applies to releases to sanitary sewer. Please 

see Requested Action for item 3 in Section 7.3.2. 

4. New Comment: The actions described in Section 7.0, Volume 1A of the application 

pertaining to the activities of a post-closure plan are insufficient for determining if the proposed 

site will meet the performance objectives contained in 30 TAC §336.723 through §336.727 and 

30 TAC §336.721(5). 

Requested Action: Please develop a comprehensive post-closure plan. The plan, in addition 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 13

to some of the activities already mentioned in Section 7 of the application, should address three 

major areas: surface drainage and erosion protection, geotechnical stability, and post-operational 

environmental monitoring. The plan should include all activities required to carry out the 

necessary maintenance, surveillance, testing and engineering required to demonstrate that the 

site has not failed prior to the custodial agencies taking control of the site. In developing this 

plan, the Applicant is advised to review and incorporate guidelines provided in NUREG-1199 

Section 5 and NUREG-1200 SRP 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. Also, please update the cost estimates 

pertaining to post-closure activities. See Attachment 12, Section 12.1.4(3), Comment 5. 


If the Applicant intends to dispose of mixed waste, the Applicant shall demonstrate, after 

final closure, plans for compliance with all post-closure requirements contained in 30 TAC 

§335.174, including maintenance and monitoring throughout the post-closure care period. 

1. New Comment: The actions described in Section 7.0, Volume 1A of the application 

pertaining to the activities of a post-closure plan will be insufficient for determining if the 

proposed site will meet the requirement of 30 TAC §335.174, Closure and Post-Closure Care of 

Hazardous Waste Landfills. 

Requested Action: Develop a comprehensive post-closure plan. The plan should include 

activities that pertain to the leak detection system, the leachate removal system and the 

groundwater monitoring system. These major activities along with others are outlined in 30 

TAC §335.174 Closure and Post-Closure Care of Hazardous Waste Landfills. Also, please 

update cost estimates pertaining to post-closure activities. See Attachment 12, Section 12.1.4(3), 

Comment 5. 


The Applicant shall provide a description of the long-term environmental monitoring 

programs, including radioactive and chemical characteristics, and plan for taking 

corrective measures if migration of radionuclides or chemical constituents is indicated 

[H&SC §401.112(a)(6), (11) & (17)], [30 TAC §336.708(a)(10) & [30 TAC §336.734(b)] 

1. New Comment: The actions described in Section 7.0, Volume 1A of the application and 

Appendix 7.2.2, Volume 10, pertaining to the activities of institutional control will be 

insufficient for determining if the proposed site will meet the performance objectives contained 

in 30 TAC §336.723 through §336.727 and 30 TAC §336.721(5). 

Requested Action: Develop an institutional control plan that is complete and comprehensive. 

The plan, in addition to some of the activities already mentioned in Section 7, Appendix 7.2.2 of 

the application, should address in detail environmental monitoring. The plan should include all 

activities required to carry out the necessary maintenance, surveillance, testing and engineering 

of the monitoring plan required to demonstrate that the site has not failed and will not fail during 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 13

the period of institutional control. In developing this plan, the Applicant is advised to review 

and incorporate guidelines provided in NUREG-1199 Section 5 and NUREG-1200 SRP 5.1.1 . 

Also, please update the cost estimates pertaining to institutional control activities. See 

Attachment 12, Section 12.1.4(4), Comment 3. 


The Applicant shall provide a plan on how the custodial agency shall carry out an 

institutional control program to physically control access to the disposal site following 

transfer of control of the disposal site from the disposal site operator. The institutional 

control program shall also include, but not be limited to, carrying out an environmental 

monitoring program at the disposal site, periodic surveillance, minor custodial care, and 

other requirements as determined by the <strong>commission</strong> or executive director, and 

administration of funds to cover the costs for these activities. The period of institutional 

control shall be determined by the <strong>commission</strong> but may not be relied upon for more than 

100 years following transfer of control of the disposal site to the custodial agency. [30 

TAC §336.734(b)] 

1. New Comment: The actions described in Section 7.0, Volume 1A, and Appendix 7.2.2 

Volume 10 of the application pertaining to the activities of an institutional control plan will be 

insufficient for determining if the proposed site will meet the performance objectives contained 

in 30 TAC §336.723 through §336.727 and 30 TAC §336.721(5). 

Requested Action: Please develop and provide an institutional control plan that is complete and 

comprehensive. The plan, in addition to some of the activities already mentioned in Section 7, 

Appendix 7.2.2 of the application, should address three major areas: surface drainage and 

erosion control, geotechnical stability, and post-operational environmental monitoring. The plan 

should include all activities required to carry out the necessary maintenance, surveillance, testing 

and engineering required to demonstrate that the site will not fail during the institutional control 

period. In developing this plan, the Applicant should to review and incorporate guidelines 

provided in federal guidance in NUREG-1199 Section 5 and NUREG-1200 SRP 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. 

Also, please update the cost estimates pertaining to institutional control. See Attachment 12, 

Section 12.1.4(4), Comment 3. 


The Applicant shall address (e.g. modeling) unplanned events that pose a risk to public 

health, safety, and the environment that may occur after the de<strong>commission</strong>ing and closure 

of the compact waste disposal facility or federal facility waste disposal facility [30 TAC 

§336.738(a)] 

1. New Comment: The actions described in Section 7.0, Volume 1A, and Appendix 7.3.2 of 

the application pertaining to the activities of a corrective action plan do not address catastrophic 

events that could occur in a LLRW disposal site anytime after operations start, e.g. the 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 13

compacted Red Bed clay sidewall liner fails and the site fails to meet performance objectives. 

Requested Action: Please develop and provide a corrective action plan that is complete and 

comprehensive. The plan, in addition to some of the activities already mentioned in Section 7, 

Appendix 7.3.2 of the application, should identify scenarios that could occur in a LLRW 

disposal site resulting in the migration of radionuclides into ambient and adjacent media. The 

plan should address correction action necessary upon the occurrence of a worst case scenario, 

such as described in the comment. Please see related Comment 7 in Section 7.3.2. 


The Applicant shall provide a plan for taking corrective measures if migration of 

radionuclides and chemical constituents would indicate that the performance objectives of 

30 TAC §336.723 may not be met. [30 TAC §336.731(d)] 

1. Comment: The rules in 30 TAC §336.731(b-d) require that the Applicant develop and 

submit an early warning and corrective action plan. The Applicant’s response to the TNOD1 

comments regarding Appendix 7.3.2, Section 5.1.5 (Data Analysis and Response System) is 

insufficient. The Applicant has not described an acceptable statistical method for 

providing a solution to the critical problem of early detection of a radionuclide release 

from the proposed facility. For example, their procedures do not provide for a 

characterization of the decision errors that will occur when used to make decisions about 

monitoring data. Furthermore, the Applicant’s description of the intended procedures for 

determining when an exceedance of some pre-established limit has occurred, is not 

consistent with terminology generally used by environmental statisticians to describe and 

clarify such procedures. 

One of the stated purposes of the environmental monitoring systems under discussion in 

Appendix 7.3.2 is to provide an early warning of a release of a radionuclide. The Applicant 

gives due concern for Type I errors (limiting “false alarms”). However, the Type II error 

rates characterizing the decision mechanisms proposed by the Applicant for determining 

when an actual release may have occurred are given no direct or indirect consideration in 

Appendix 7.3.2. Since, in a detection monitoring application, a Type II error is a failure to 

identify a true release, a high Type II error may translate into an inability to provide for 

the required “early warning.” Therefore, the TCEQ concludes that the Applicant needs to 

substantively revise the statistical model presented in Appendix 7.3.2. The following 

observations are intended as support for these conclusions. As noted in the first TNOD, if 

appropriate, it is requested that the Applicant examine other portions of the license 

application having substantive statistical content, in the light of the comments given below, 

and revise these portions as necessary. Noted issues in the Applicant’s plan are as follows: 

Routine Data Analysis 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 13

In Paragraph 5.1.5.1 the Applicant states a commitment “to reviewing all environmental 

data to determine if the results exceed any investigation or action level, verifying the 

analytical results for completeness with the analysis, and identifying results requiring 

corrective actions.” On the other hand, in the same paragraph the Applicant states 

“Corrective actions are taken, as necessary, in response to questionable or elevated values 

of environmental monitoring data. Such actions include recalculation of results, 

comparison of replicate samples, re-analysis, and resampling.” 

The TCEQ believes that in this statement the Applicant has mischaracterized what should 

be intended by the use of the term “corrective action.” 30 TAC 336.731 (d) states that “the 

licensee shall have a plan for taking corrective measures if migration of radionuclides and 

chemical constituents would indicate that the performance objectives of this subchapter 

may not be met.” This rule implies that “corrective measures” are to be taken in response 

to the determination, after the various quality assurance and quality control measures 

mentioned have been completed, that a statistically significant release of a radionuclide to 

the environment has occurred. Corrective actions should not be taken, as necessary, “in 

response to questionable results” as stated by the Applicant. In sum, the Applicant should 

indicate not only what QA/QC analyses will be done when elevated values are observed, 

but what actions will be taken in response to the confirmed results. 

In Paragraph 5.1.5.1 the Applicant states that “in the event . . . sample exceeds an 

investigation level, a follow-up evaluation and verification is required.” The TCEQ 

believes that the procedures used to affect such an evaluation and verification are an 

integral part of the total decision rule (statistical model) used to decide when, in fact, a true 

exceedance of an investigation level (IL) or action level (AL) has occurred. These 

procedures, coupled with the statistical model used in the development of the IL or AL, 

condition the decision errors characterizing the total decision rule being described by the 

Applicant. Paragraph 5.1.5.1 gives no detailed description of the evaluation and 

verification procedures, nor any discussion or characterization of possible decision errors 

associated with the use of these procedures. 

In Paragraph 5.1.5.2 the Applicant states that “due to natural background variation and 

analytical difficulties, an environmental sample exceeding an IL or AL is not in and of itself 

conclusive of a problem.” The TCEQ believes that if the phrase “analytical difficulties” 

was replaced by “analytical variability” the Applicant’s statement would be acceptable. 

Measurements known to be perturbed by analytical difficulties will never be indicative of 

an environmental release. Only measurements having passed through analytical QA/QC 

procedures should be compared to an IL or AL. 

Trigger Levels - the Investigation Level (IL) 

Use of Control Charts 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 5 of 13

Paragraph 5.1.5.2 states that “measurements are compared with ILs and ALs by plotting 

on a control chart, which also documents temporal trends.” The TCEQ believes it is more 

precise to state that comparisons between analytical measurements and ILs and ALs are 

made as a comparison between two numbers, (i.e. whether or not a measurement exceeds 

an IL or AL is known before that measurement is represented on a control chart by a 

“dot.”) The plotted data, as indicated by the Applicant, serves as a pictorial representation 

of the history of these numerical comparisons and allows for a subjective judgement of the 

trends in this history. 

Definition of Investigation Level (IL) 

In Paragraph 5.1.5.2 (Trigger Levels-Investigation and Action) the Applicant states that 

“An IL is set at a point above the baseline (pre-operational) distribution that is considered 

statistically significant, i.e., at a value that is considered above the background variation . . 

. The ILs are defined statistically from the measured distributions of baseline data after the 

distributions have been individually examined, classified for normal, log-normal, or nonparametric 

statistics, and divided into any necessary temporal or spatial groups.” The 

meaning of these statements is not clear. If by “baseline distribution” the Applicant is 

referring to the probability density function resulting from tests of distributional 

assumptions regarding the population giving rise to the “realized” measurements, then, 

since the normal and log-normal distributions extend to positive infinity it is not clear what 

the phrase “above the baseline distribution” might indicate. Furthermore, some particular 

percentile of such a distribution (whether estimated or exact) cannot be characterized as 

having “statistical significance.” Only conclusions regarding null hypotheses, based on a 

statistically defined decision rule are endowed with such significance. On the other hand, if 

what is meant by “baseline distribution” is the histogram summarizing the finite set of 

available baseline data, characterized necessarily by a finite maximum value, then there is 

no a priori reason why an IL would necessarily be “above” that maximum value. 

Furthermore, it is not clear what is meant by “classified for normal, log-normal, or nonparametric 

statistics.” Perhaps the Applicant is referring here to the series of hypothesis 

tests necessary for characterizing the populations from which the available measurements 

can be considered as realizations. It is not clear, for example, how some assumed 

distribution can be classified for “normal statistics.” 

Statistical Testing of Distributional Assumptions 

Also, in Paragraph 5.1.5.2 (Trigger Levels-Investigation and Action) the Applicant states 

that “appropriate distribution statistics are determined by methods such as the 

Studentized Range Test as appropriate for the background sample size. If the distribution 

is not normal (at " #0.05 significance) the test is repeated on the natural logarithms of the 

data. If the distribution of logarithms is normal, log-normal statistics are used, as 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 6 of 13

commonly applied to radiological data (Gilbert 1987). 1 If neither tests shows normality or 

if the distribution is censored (contains “less-than” data), non-parametric data are used.” 

The meaning of this paragraph is not clear. 

The Applicant appears to be describing the series of necessary statistical hypothesis tests 

resulting in a conclusion regarding which specific family of probability density functions 

will be utilized to characterize the sampled populations of radionuclide concentrations. If 

this is so, several comments are in order. First, the Studentized Range Test is not generally 

used to test hypotheses regarding population probability density functions. For instance, 

especially for small sample sizes, the Shapiro-Wilk test is often the test of choice since it is 

known to have more power (a lower Type II error rate) relative to other appropriate test 

procedures (such as the Chi-Squared Test, or Diagnosto’s Test, etc.). The Studentized 

Range Test is generally used for completely different purposes. Second, if the Applicant is 

referring to tests of distributional hypotheses it is not clear what is being referenced by 

“appropriate distribution statistics.” Perhaps the Applicant is referring to the family of 

probability density functions concluded to sufficiently characterize the populations of 

radionuclide concentrations. Probability density functions are not statistics. Furthermore, 

probability density functions are defined by their parameters not by statistics. Statistics 

are only used to estimate these parameters. However, the test statistics utilized in any 

hypothesis test of distributional assumptions are not statistics estimating parameters of the 

hypothesized distribution but only statistics constructed for the purposes of differentiating 

between a null hypothesis regarding that distribution and some alternative hypothesis 

regarding that distribution. 

Also the statement regarding a significance level (" #0.05) is misstated: any particular 

hypothesis must be performed at a definite significance level (say " = 0.05 ). If the p level 

computed for the test is # 0.05, then the null hypothesis can be accepted (with a Type I 

error rate of 0.05). Two points must be emphasized. First, if an " = 0.03 is specified (such 

an " is # 0.05) but a p value such that 0.03 # p # 0.05 is computed, then the null hypothesis 

must be rejected (and possibly incorrectly, as characterized by a Type II error rate). 

Second, the Applicant’s consideration of the situation “if the distribution is not normal” 

masks the reality of hypothesis testing: it can never be known if the distribution is or is not 

normal; the best that can be achieved is that the null hypothesis regarding the family of 

distributions characterizing the population can be accepted or rejected. Each of these 

1 This citation of Gilbert (1987) appears to imply that Gilbert’s 1987 text Statistical 

Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring explicitly comments on the applicability of 

“log-normal statistics” to radiological data. On the other hand perhaps this citation is 

merely directing the reader to the discussions in Chapter 13 of Gilbert’s text: 

Characterizing Lognormal Populations. The Applicant should clarify the implication of this 

citation. 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 7 of 13

conclusions is necessarily characterized by some finite rate of decision error (Type I or 

Type II). Nowhere in Paragraph 5.1.5 does the Applicant consider the Type II error rates 

characterizing the decision rules being proposed. 

The Applicant’s statement that if “neither test shows normality or if the distribution is 

censored (contains “less-than” data), non-parametric data are used,” appears to be in need 

of reformulation. Assume that “less-than” refers to measurements judged to be at 

sufficiently low concentrations so that even the presence of the radionuclide analyzed is not 

indicated with a sufficient probability (a “non-detect”). Hypothesis tests regarding the 

normality or log-normality of a distribution can still be completed utilizing data sets 

containing “less-than” data; the statistical literature contains many recommendations for 

how to accommodate censored data sets in such applications. Finally, rather than “nonparametric 

data,” the Applicant appears to be referring to “non-parametric statistics,” 

that is, statistics containing useful information regardless of which family of distributions 

characterize the data used in computing their value. 

Applicant’s Formulation of the IL 

Finally, some comments demonstrating that the IL is “equal to the best estimate of the 97.5 

% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) of the Operating Background Level” requires 

clarification. In statistical practice one doesn’t estimate Upper Confidence Limits, rather 

Upper Confidence Limits are estimators themselves, of population parameters. 

Furthermore, the Applicant makes no mention of which parameter is being estimated by 

the UCL being discussed. 

Second, the Applicant states that “the OBL is initially set at one standard deviation above 

the measured pre-operational background mean.” Sample concentrations are “measured” 

(although such measurements are understood to be estimates of the actual sample 

concentrations); the background mean is estimated using a statistic dependent on the set of 

available measurements. That estimate is not a “measurement.” 

Third, the Applicant’s use of the standardized normal variable (Z) in the formulation of 

the IL (Eq 1) is only appropriate if the exact values for the distribution parameters : and F 

are known. The Applicant’s own notation in (Eq. 1) indicates that only estimates of these 

parameters are available. The Applicant gives no description of the typical sample size 

that will allow calculations of the proposed ILs or about the standard error (as a function 

of sample size) of the statistical estimates appearing in Eq. 1. Thus, the claim by the 

Applicant that the false positive error rate should be “approximately 2.5 % of the new 

measurements,” appears to be without foundation. 

Fourth, when the exact values of the parameters : and F are not known, the error rates 

characterizing the use of any statistical upper interval in the form x + ks is necessarily 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 8 of 13

dependent on the sample size available for computing the numerical value of this statistic. 

The Applicant makes no mention of the sample sizes to be used in computing the value of 

the upper interval in question, or the Type II error rate characterizing its use. Any 

statistical procedure with a high Type II error rate, regardless of any stipulated Type I 

error rate, may not have a sufficient “power” to detect deviations from a background 

conditions when present. Thus, such a statistical procedure may not afford adequate 

protection of the environment. Again, the Applicant has not addressed this characteristic 

of the methodology being proposed. 

Fifth, it appears from the Applicant’s description of the proposed methodology that the 

Applicant intends to compare single analytical measurements, as they become available to 

the IL. In statistical language it seems that the Applicant intends to construct an upper 

interval that will contain the “next realization” assumed, under a null hypothesis to be 

from the background population, with a specified probability. Furthermore, the 

application appears to intend this probability to be 97.5 %. If this is true, then in 

Appendix 7.3.2 the Applicant appears to be describing the construction of a statistical 

prediction interval (rather than, say a confidence interval, or a tolerance interval). The 

Applicant needs to be clear about what type of statistical interval they are proposing (As in 

the Courtesy Letter, the Applicant is referred to the text Statistical Intervals: A Guide to 

Practitioners by Hahn and Meeker. Other useful texts might be Statistical Methods for 

Groundwater Monitoring, and Statistical Methods for Detection and Quantification of 

Environmental Contamination, the first by Robert D. Gibbons, the second by Gibbons and 

David E. Coleman). 

Please consider that when the proposed decision rule is viewed as utilizing a statistical 

prediction interval constructed to contain, with a specified probability, the next realization, 

the Type I error rate (defined commensurate with that suggested by the Applicant, i.e, 

characterizing single comparisons of measurements to a limit) will be seen to be quite 

different than that claimed by the Applicant. 

Applicant’s Characterization of the Type I Error Rate 

Also, the Applicant claims that the intention that the false positive error rate should be 

“approximately 2.5 % of the new measurements.” Assuming that the error rate for a 

single comparison between a new measurement and the IL is 2.5 % (and it is not), the false 

positive error rate characterizing the multiple decisions using the proposed procedure has 

not been addressed by the Applicant. This rate can be considerably higher than the error 

rate characterizing a single decision. Also, the Type II error rate characterizing such 

multiple decisions can be considerably different than the Type II error rate characterizing 

the use of the proposed decision rule for a single decision. The Applicant also does not 

address this issue. 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 9 of 13

Other Considerations Regarding the IL 

The Applicant mentions the possibility that the IL may be modified as new background 

data is accumulated. However, no discussion of how this important modification may be 

accomplished is presented. 

Lastly, the Applicant’s description of the construction of the IL for analytes without a 

natural background component seems to utilize a single realization (the current 

measurement) and an assumed second realization of zero. The statistical power of any 

statistical procedure animated by a single measurement and an assumed value for a second 

measurement will more than likely be insufficient for accurate monitoring. 

Investigation Levels for Radionuclides without Detectable Pre-Operational Data 

The Applicant’s procedure for constructing an IL for radionuclides without a natural 

background component is in need of clarification. The Applicant’s description of the 

construction of the control chart states that the “mean of the pre-operational 97.5% UCLs 

will be averaged and used for comparison with the 97.5 % for each “non-detected” new 

measurement to demonstrate that the new measurement does not have a significantly 

higher UCL than those determined for the pre-operational data set.” First, it appears that 

the Applicant may have intended to state that the “ pre-operational UCLs will be 

averaged,” rather than the “mean of the pre-operational UCLs will be averaged.” Second 

(assuming the Applicants statement regarding the magnitude of the Type I error utilizing 

the proposed procedure is true), the Applicant seems to be assuming that because the Type 

I error characterizing the comparison of a single measurement to an IL estimated as a 

“97.5% UCL” is 2.5 percent, then the Type Error Rate associated with comparing an IL 

(also 97.5% UCL) to the mean of some finite set of other such ILs. There is no apparent 

reason why this should be true, and such a claim by the Applicant is in need of 

demonstration. 

Furthermore, while it is clear that the procedure proposed by the Applicant does use some 

of the available measures (e.g., “net-observed value”) characterizing the quality of the 

analytical measurements, Paragraph 5.1.5.2, is not clear on how laboratory measures, such 

as the method detection limit or critical limit, are utilized. The TCEQ is not clear whether 

or not the MDL or associated critical limit are used to determine that the available preoperational 

data do not have a natural background component. Perhaps that could mean 

that all of the pre-operational data were determined to be “non-detects.” If that is so, the 

Applicant does not explain how such “detection decisions” would be made. 

On the other hand the Applicant states that the proposed procedure “ignores the MDL, 

reporting limit, and other limits that are seldom adequately defined (Currie 1997),” 

suggesting that both the initial classification of a pre-operational datum as an element in a 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 10 of 13

set of data indicating a radionuclide without a natural background component, and that 

proposed decision rule based on a comparison of ILs do not rely on conventional analytical 

limits. Conversely, if the Applicant does use these conventional limits in the initial 

classification procedure, that would seem to undercut the reason given for not using such 

limits in a decision rule applied to new measurements. 

Also, many different decision rules have been utilized in environmental monitoring systems 

to attempt to resolve the presence in the environment of chemicals otherwise not naturally 

occurring. Many of these procedures in fact do utilize some of the conventional analytical 

limits (e.g., MDL). The Applicant needs to demonstrate, or otherwise document, the 

equivalency or superiority of the decision rule they are proposing, relative to other 

commonly used procedures. 2 

Applicant’s Formulation of the AL 

In Paragraph 5.1.5.2 the Applicant’s stated rationale for constructing two different Action 

Levels (ALs) is not clear. The Applicant states “An AL is based on a corresponding 

regulatory standard plus a background contribution. The approach is suitable for most 

situations but is impractical for radionuclides where the variations also exceed the 

regulatory standard. For most analytes the standard is set at 10% of the regulatory limit.” 

On the other hand the Applicant states “there are a few radionuclides whose background 

levels and/or variation approach or exceed the applicable limits (seemingly referring to 

previously mentioned “radionuclides where the variations also exceed the regulatory 

standard). This second discussion of such radionuclides posits an AL for such 

radionuclides (in Paragraph 5.1.5.2 (1)) that “is based on the corresponding regulatory 

standard value plus a background contribution.” That seems inconsistent with the 

characterization of such an AL in the first mention of such radionuclides as “impractical.” 

Also, it is not clear how the Applicant determines which radionuclides have variations in 

exceedance with the laboratory standard so that it can best be determined which of the ALs 

defined by the Applicant should be applied in conjunction with each radionuclide. Nor is it 

clear why, for radionuclides with “variations” not in exceedance with the regulatory 

standard, the regulatory standard, and not 10% of the regulatory standard, shouldn’t be 

used for the AL. 

2 Dr. Daniel J. Strom from Pacific Northwest Laboratory has written several recent 

articles describing how conventional analytical limits might be correctly interpreted and 

used effectively in determining when a radionuclide has been “detected.” (E.g., False 

Alarms, True Alarms, and Statistics: Correct Usage of Decision Level and Minimum 

Detectable Amount, Continuing Education Lecture given by Dr. D.J. Strom, Health Physics 

Society, Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 15, 1998.) 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 11 of 13

Requested Action: Please develop and carefully enunciate appropriate and adequate statistical 

models in all sections of the application relying upon statistical decision mechanisms. Example 

sections that require modification include the early warning and corrective action plan, all 

necessary monitoring plans, and development of the performance assessment. The Applicant 

should clearly describe what type of statistical interval it intends to use, including assumptions, 

performance characteristics, error rates, and a discussion in justification of its selection. 

The Applicant should also clearly describe what constitutes the proposed decision mechanism 

for the AL, and what considerations dictated the choice of “10 percent.” A more in-depth 

discussion of the proposed mechanism, as a statistical method, should be provided. 


3. Comment: In Appendix 7.3.2, page 7.3.2-12A, section 5.3.4 states that 10 CFR §20.2003 

provides regulations for the disposal of waste. This particular section of Part 20 applies to 

discharges of radionuclides during operations on some frequent basis to sanitary sewer and 

requires a determination of a monthly average concentration not to be exceeded. 

Requested Action: Please provide a detailed discussion on leachate management and clarify 

how leachate meeting the requirements of 10 CFR §20.2003 will be discharged to sanitary 

sewer if all surface facilities have been dismantled. Will a sanitary sewer system be 

accessible and, if so, where will it be located and when will it be available? Please clarify 

how the determination will be made that the leachate collected from the FWF is water 

soluble if it may potentially contain organics or water- insoluble constituents. Also, please 

clarify how leachate collected infrequently, i.e. annually, will meet the requirement of 10 

CFR §20.2003(a)(2) requiring determination of a monthly average. 

4. Comment: In Appendix 7.3.2, page 7.3.2-13C, section 5.3.5.4 states that “The leachate 

collection and analysis program described in Section 5.3.4 will provide data to determine 

the source, nature, and extent of contamination within the collection system. The specific 

isotopes and concentrations identified will provide a basis for reviewing waste inventory 

locations in order to identify areas where more detailed sampling and analyses should be 

conducted.” 

Requested Action: Please provide a detailed discussion on how waste inventory locations 

will be identified, sampled, and analyzed based on data from leachate collected and the 

system for monitoring and retrieving the waste in accordance with 30 TAC §336.730(b)(2). 

If this is discussed elsewhere in the application please provide the reference. Also, see 

Requested Action in item 3 above. 

5. Comment: In Appendix 7.3.2, page 7.3.2-12D, section 5.3.8 states that the corrective action 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 12 of 13

plan will establish precise actions that WCS or the custodial agency will take if the results of 

monitoring indicate an exceedance. According to Section 5.3.9 Schedule of Corrective Action 

Plan, approximately nine activities would be scheduled prior to any corrective action steps being 

taken. The Applicant has identified potential system failure scenarios and briefly described 

corrective actions to address these failures but has not provided enough detailed discussion and 

site-specific corrective measures as part of a site-specific plan. 

Requested Action: Please provide information previously requested. Please provide a site 

specific corrective action plan that utilizes site-specific corrective measures identified in Section 

5.3.8 and the outline provided for a generic corrective action plan. 

6. New Comment: In Appendix 7.3.2, page 7.3.2-13C, section 5.3.5.4 states that “Groundwater 

analysis can provide early warning of contaminant migration before it reaches the disposal 

facility boundary.” “Disposal facility” is not a defined term. The requirement in 30 TAC 

§336.731(c) for environmental monitoring states “The monitoring system shall be capable of 

providing early warning of releases of radionuclides and chemical constituents before they leave 

the disposal site boundary.” The disposal site consists of the disposal unit and the buffer zone. 

Requested Action: Please clarify the use of the term disposal facility boundary. 

7. New Comment: The Applicant, after selecting a worst case scenario, should then identify all 

activities associated with cleaning up the site and transferring the LLRW and other contaminated 

materials to another site. 

Requested Action: For the selected worst case scenario, identify all required activities for 

remediating the proposed LLRW site, for holding and transferring the LLRW and other 

generated waste to another site, or for developing and constructing a new site. Also, please 

update the cost estimate pertaining to corrective action. See Attachment 12, Section 12.1.4(5), 

Comment 2. (Please see Section 7.3.1, Comment 1.) 

Attachment 7 


1/30/2006 Page 13 of 13

Attachment 8 



Performance Assessment 


In meeting the performance objectives in 30 TAC §336.724 (relating to Protection of the 

General Population from Releases of Radioactivity), 30 TAC §336.725 (relating to 

Protection of Individuals from Inadvertent Intrusion), 30 TAC §336.726 (relating to 

Protection of Individuals during Operations), and 30 TAC §336.727 (relating to Stability of 

the Disposal Site after Closure), the Applicant shall provide the following information: 

(1) data used for demonstrating compliance with performance objectives; 

(2) how data was collected; 

(3) development of conceptual model(s); 

(4) defining scenarios and pathways; 

1. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendices 8.0-3 and 8.0-6, none of the pathways consider longterm 

erosion. Over the long-term, the slope to Monument Draw (NM) may eventually be 

eroded. Headward erosion of drainages downslope from the facilities may eventually undercut 

the engineered covers and excavate the RCRA disposal units and the FWF and CWF disposal 

units. 


• The Applicant states that the Universal Soil Loss Equation is applicable to 

agricultural areas only and is not appropriate for the natural surface to Monument 

Draw, NM. Please use a more appropriate numerical model for assessing erosion on 

the slope to Monument Draw over at least the next 10,000 years. 

• The logic provided on future erosion of Monument Draw and eastward retreat of 

the “flank” is incomplete. As the channel of Monument Draw lies approximately 

three miles west of the facility, please clearly state if the “flank” refers to the eastern 

side of the channel. The concern is not that future erosion causes Monument Draw 

itself to migrate three miles to the facility, but that erosion on the slope to 

Monument Draw, on which the RCRA and LLRW facilities are sited, undercuts or 

erodes the flanks of the facilities causing release of the wastes. If the “flank” of 

Monument Draw were to migrate eastward at the rates suggested by the Applicant 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 23

(1.18 in/yr), the erosion of the eastern slope to Monument Draw would cause failure 

of the facility long before the 160,000 years the Applicant calculates for the three 

miles “eastward retreat of the flank.” Please comment on these concerns. 

• Please provide a series of cross sections from the facilities to Monument Draw 

showing progressive “parallel slope retreat” at 1.18 in/yr for 20,000 years. 

2. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendices 8.0-3 and 8.0-6, pathways G1 to G5 all appear to 

assume that water is present in the disposal units from having entered through the cover system. 

None of the scenarios consider lateral flow (in OAG or very shallow Triassic sandstones or 

fractures) as a result of shallow recharge functioning as a pathway for water to enter the disposal 

units. 

Requested Action: New data provided by the Applicant in response to TNOD1 clearly 

shows (in Volume 3A, Figure 6.6-3a) saturated OAG at the edges of the proposed LLRW 

facilities under current conditions. The Applicant also states (in Attachment 2, Section 

2.7.1, response #2) that increased saturation of the OAG may lead to infiltration of water 

into the performance cover in the future. Given that these engineered barriers cannot be 

considered in “technological performance” for periods of time exceeding 500 years (refer to 

response to Attachment 3, Section 3.4, Comment 1), is it not possible that a future (500 to 

10,000 years) period of increased recharge to the OAG, and a resultant increase in lateral 

and vertical saturation, could result in water from the OAG entering the waste? Please 

evaluate this scenario. Please review the pathway analysis and make a comparison between 

potential lateral flow from shallow recharge and water infiltration through the cover system. 

3. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendices 8.0-3 and 8.0-6, pathway G2 (125-foot sandstone) is 

eliminated because the 125-foot sandstone is considered unsaturated and “thought to be 

discontinuous across the site.” However, on figure 6.5-14, “125-Foot Zone Isopach,” in Volume 

3, the isopach map appears to show that the 125-foot zone is continuous across the disposal units 

and apparently across the site. 

Requested Action: Because fractures are used to transmit contaminants to the 125-ft layer, 

please analyze the effect of fractures on horizontal transport within the layer. The 

horizontal permeability used by the Applicant could be revised in light of Attachment 2, 

Section 2.6.1, comment 15. Please resolve this possible inconsistency and clarify applicable 

text and figures in the application to demonstrate whether the 125-foot sandstone is continuous 

across the site. 

4. Comment: Although the 125-foot sandstone is considered in the application to be 

unsaturated, due to its position apparently intersecting the proposed facility bottom (Volume 3, 

Figure 6.5-7), it may be possible that it could provide a pathway for movement of leachate into 

the environment. A potential scenario would be downward movement of water/leachate flowing 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 23

from the disposal units vertically to the 125-foot sandstone through silty claystones with 

relatively low-permeability. If this occurred, the leachate could then move laterally through 

“wicking” along the top of this permeability contrast, and eventually into the more permeable 

125-foot zone, thus providing a pathway. The leachate may flow more quickly if fractures 

provide a more direct route to the 125-foot sandstone. 

Requested Action: Please refer to the requested action in Comment 3, above. Please 

discuss this possibility for the purpose of pathway analysis. 

5. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendix 8.0-6, page 21, a “worst case scenario involving 

horizontal flow was assumed” for pathway G1, (Leaching and groundwater transport to a well 

screened above the Redbeds). Alternatively, a worst-case scenario might consider flow through 

a system of fractures, such as those observed in the RCRA excavation. 


reevaluate pathway G1, taking into account possible flow along a closely spaced fracture system. 

6. Comment: The discussion on post-closure monitoring in Volume 9, Appendix 7.3.2, Section 

5.3.2, “Physical Parameters that Could Degrade Performance of the Disposal Site,”on page 

7.3.2-11, doesn’t consider downslope erosion, including headward erosion by rills and draws, 

that may adversely impact the facilities. 


provide an analysis of downslope erosion as a potential long-term problem following post 

closure monitoring. 



9. New Comment: In Volume 1A, page 8-28, Table 8.3-1, the Dose Limits for Site Boundary 

and Nearest Resident under the Normal Operations Scenario are incorrect. Also, the Dose Limit 

for the Onsite Resident under the Post-Institutional Control Scenario is incorrect. 

Requested Action: Please correct the dose limits presented in Table 8.3-1. 


Other Activities/Facilities - Demonstrate that the disposal site shall not be located where 

nearby facilities or activities could adversely impact the ability of the site to meet the 

performance objectives of 30 TAC §336.723 or significantly mask the environmental 

monitoring program. If activities involving radioactive material were previously 

performed on the site, evaluate the contribution of those activities that may impact the 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 23

ability of the site to meet performance objectives. [30 TAC §336.728(k)] 



3. Comment: The Applicant responded to this comment with a newly-proposed 

groundwater monitoring system for the FWF and CWF in Volume 3A, Figure 6.6-11. The 

proposed groundwater monitoring system consists of: 

• single upgradient monitoring wells (1 for FWF; 1 for CWF) in the 225-foot 

sandstone for each landfill; 

• six downgradient well locations (4 for FWF; 2 for CWF) paired in the 125-foot 

sandstone and the 225-foot sandstone, spaced 600 feet apart (the Applicant declared 

the monitor well spacing to be “conservative”); and 

• three monitoring wells in the OAG (1 located at the northeast corner of the FWF at 

approximately the zero OAG groundwater saturation thickness line; 1 located in an 

area of potentially isolated saturation in the OAG immediately north of the middle 

northern boundary of the CWF; and 1 located in an area of potentially isolated 

saturation in the OAG and in, or in the immediate vicinity of, a known playa just 

east of the approximate middle eastern boundary of the CWF; all OAG 

groundwater saturation thickness references per Volume 3A, Figure 6.6-3a). 

There are issues associated with the Applicant’s newly-proposed groundwater monitoring 

system including the following: (a) still provides only one-fourth of the downgradient 

coverage in the 225-foot sandstone that the RCRA landfill does; (b) provides no monitoring 

between the FWF and CWF to enable distinguishing a release from one of the landfills in a 

direction toward the other [Please note that federal guidance on low-level waste disposal in 

NUREG-0902, Site Suitability, Selection, and Characterization, states on page 9, “In cases of 

co-located facilities, the monitoring programs for the facilities should be able to identify the 

source and differentiate between the releases of the separate facilities.”]; (c) may not 

provide sufficient upgradient coverage to enable meaningful statistical analysis and 

determination of Type I and Type II statistical errors; and (d) may ultimately be ineffective 

at providing an early warning of a release (per 30 TAC §336.731(b)). 

Requested Action: Please propose a groundwater monitoring system for the FWF and 

CWF that (a) consists of downgradient well coverage at least as dense as that of the RCRA 

landfill; (b) includes monitoring wells between the FWF and CWF to enable distinguishing 

a release from one of the landfills in a direction toward the other; (c) provides sufficient 

upgradient coverage to enable meaningful statistical analysis and determination of Type I 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 23

and Type II statistical errors; and (d) provides an early warning of a release. 

Please demonstrate how the proposed distance between monitoring wells is conservative, 

including descriptions of estimated contaminant plume widths. Any modifications to the 

proposed groundwater monitoring system (and associated sampling) should be 

accompanied by updates in the cost estimates, accordingly. 

The Applicant also stated that the operational and post-operational radiological 

monitoring program for the FWF and CWF described in the REMP will be revised to be 

consistent with the approved groundwater monitoring program prior to initiation of 

operations. Please revise the description of the monitoring program accordingly in the 

REMP in the license application materials. 



6. Comment: The application in Volume 1A, page 8-8F states, “For the groundwater pathway, 

there is no connection between the WCS facilities and the non-WCS facilities…” There is no 

discussion of potential lateral pathways for leachate through the OAG or the shallow Dockum. 

Requested Action: Please refer to Requested Action in Section 8.1.1, Comment 2. Please 

discuss the potential for lateral transport to the accessible environment through the OAG or 

permeable zones in the Dockum above the 225-foot sandstone to or from WCS facilities and 

non-WCS facilities. 


Describe the types, chemical and physical forms, quantities, classification, and 

specifications of the radioactive material proposed to be received, possessed, processed, and 

disposed of at the land disposal facility. Provide sufficient information about the wastes 

projected to be disposed of at the disposal site to allow for defendable modeling of potential 

radiological impacts associated with waste disposal. This description shall include any 

prior disposal containing radioactive material at the site. This description shall include 

performance criteria for form and packaging of the waste or radioactive material that has 

been previously received and will be received. [30 TAC §§336.707(6), 305.45(a)(8)(B)(ii)] & 

[THSC §401.112(a)(8)] 

1. Overall Comment: Answered in TNOD1 response. 



Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 5 of 23



6. Overall Comment: The Applicant has not provided information pertaining to the hazardous 

chemical constituents and the chemical properties of the proposed 70 federal waste streams. 

Requested Action: Although the Applicant indicates that this information will be available 

in a future RCRA application submittal, this information is needed in order to fully review 

the adequacy of proposed LLRW facility operating procedures and design. Please provide 

this information and modify facility design and operating procedures accordingly to 

include this information. 

7. Comment: The 1998 Department of Energy report “The Current and Planned Low-Level 

Waste Disposal Capacity Report,” Revision 1 was used in developing the source term for the 

FWF in Appendix 8.0-2, Vol. 9. The 2000 Department of Energy report “The Current and 

Planned Low-Level Waste Disposal Capacity Report,” Revision 2 is the most current 

information on U.S. DOE LLRW and MLLRW, and represents the latest compilation of 

radiological estimates for U.S. DOE waste streams. In addition, the volumes and 

concentrations of the proposed 70 LLRW streams (Commercial and To-be-Determined 

categories) are significantly different in the 2000 report. 

Requested Action: Please modify the source term for the FWF to incorporate the most 

current information from 2000 DOE report. Please clearly identify the sections, pages, 

tables, and appendices from the 2000 DOE report used in the selection of the volumes and 

the concentrations for each of the proposed streams. In addition, please update all 

pertinent sections of the application that would be impacted by this change. Also, please 

provide a compact disk containing the spreadsheets used in the calculation of the source 

term, as well as all tables and summary sheets from those spreadsheets. 

8. Comment: In Appendix 8.0-1, Table 8.0-1-3, and page 8.0-1-14, both indicate that rare-earth 

processing waste was considered as part of the Texas Compact inventory. This waste is 

considered naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM) and cannot be disposed of as lowlevel 

radioactive waste in accordance with THSC §401.004(b). 

Requested Action: The Applicant’s response to this comment in TNOD1 is not clear. 

Waste generated from rare-earth processing would likely be classified as naturallyoccurring 

radioactive material (NORM) and therefore cannot be disposed of in a LLRW 

disposal facility. Please revise the Texas Compact inventory and the dose modeling to 

reflect exclusion of rare-earth processing waste that is not LLRW. 

9. Comment: The application in Volume 10, page 8.0-1-3 states a total volume of 2.8 million 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 6 of 23

ft 3 (79,240 m 3 ) for Compact waste. The Applicant uses a volume of 707,850 m 3 in RESRAD for 

the volume of the Compact waste. The methodology used by the Applicant to develop source 

term concentrations is inappropriate. Credit cannot be taken for the entire cell volume 

and the area between the facilities. 

Requested Action: Please revise the waste volumes in both the FWF and CWF to reflect 

more representative source term concentrations. Also, please revise the dose modeling as 

necessary. 

10. Comment: The application in Volume 10, page 8.0-6-27, last paragraph states that the 

input radionuclide inventory was the entire inventory for the CWF or FWF. Table 8.0-1-7 for 

the Texas Compact inventory lists a total of 77 radionuclides while the RESRAD dose modeling 

for the Compact inventory uses 52 radionuclides. In its response to TNOD1, the Applicant 

states that certain radionuclides were omitted because they were negligible contributors to 

the total dose and that a comparative analysis is included in the revised Appendix 8.0-6. 

No comparative analysis is provided in the revised Appendix 8.0-6. 

Requested Action: Please provide a complete description of what radionuclides were 

omitted and the reasons for omission. Also, please provide the comparative analysis. 

11. Comment: The radionuclide concentrations used in RESRAD for the CWF and FWF 

appear to be different than the total inventories provided in Appendices 8.0-1 and 8.0-2. 

Requested Action: Please see requested action for Comments 9 and 10 above. 

12. New Comment: The Applicant does not state whether the proposed source term for the 

FWF is “as disposed waste,” or “as generated waste,” or a combination of both. 

Requested Action: Please indicate which of these categories is applicable for the proposed 

source term. Also, please indicate and describe all treatment/processing steps that will be taken 

if any of the 70 proposed FWF streams will be “as disposed waste” or if any of the mixed waste 

streams will be chemically treated prior to its emplacement in the FWF trench. 

13. New Comment: The annual volume rates and radioactivity concentrations of generated 

waste for the CWF reflect variability due to the shutting down of power plants and the 

generation of decontamination and de<strong>commission</strong>ing (D&D) equipment; however, they do not 

reflect variability due to the occurrence of cyclic fuel outages which take place during the 

operating life of the power plants. Additionally, proposed projections do not show variability 

due to business growth or future facility development. 

Requested Action: Please modify the source term waste volume projections to reflect 

variability due to these factors. 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 7 of 23

14. New Comment: The Applicant may not have considered how license extensions of nuclear 

power plants will impact future LLRW generation, and thus the operating life of the CWF. 

Requested Action: Please describe how license extensions of nuclear power plants will impact 

the proposed operating life for the CWF. Please describe the impacts of the generation of 

operational and D&D waste from the power plants for these extensions in time. 

15. New Comment: For the years 2031 and 2032 the volume projections include both 

operational and D&D waste simultaneously for Comanche Peak. 

Requested Action: Please explain why this plant will generate both operational and D&D waste 

simultaneously in 2031 and 2032. 

16. New Comment: The proposed source term for the CWF includes “as disposed” instead of 

“as generated waste” from the generators. “As disposed waste” is 30 percent less in volume than 

“as generated waste,” indicating processing either by the generator or by the Applicant prior to 

disposal. 

Requested Action: These proposals (density changes of the waste, volume changes of the waste 

and/or the chemical treatment of LLRW) are forms of treatment/processing. Please clearly 

describe, for each of the 50 CWF streams, all the procedures, chemical changes and physical 

changes that CWF LLRW waste intended for disposal will undergo prior to its emplacement in 

the trench. 


The following information on waste characteristics should be provided: 

(4) Information on the physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics of each waste 

stream so identified in items 2 and 3 above. This information should include: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

annual volume (provided in TNOD1 response); 

waste class; 

average concentrations of the principal radionuclides constituting the waste 

stream; 

the chemical and physical form; 

the presence of chelating agents, 

packaging characteristics (e.g., whether the waste will be disposed in a high- 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 8 of 23

integrity container); and 

(g) 

solidification agent. Descriptions of the chemical and physical form should 

provide information important to an estimation of release rates (e.g., 

whether the waste stream consists of activated metals, sealed sources, and 

ion-exchange resins). 

(7) A presentation and discussion of any limitations that will be imposed on waste 

receipt, form, packaging, or other characteristics that would influence assessments 

of disposal facility performance. Such limitations could potentially include 

limitations on total site inventories of radionuclides of concern (e.g., C-14, H-3, Tc- 

99, or I-129), or requirements on the structural stability of certain Class A wastes. 

These proposed limitations will be incorporated into the land disposal facility 

license as conditions of operation. 


2. Comment: In Volume 1A, page 8-14, first paragraph states that bulk Class A waste will be 

placed in the FWF without canisterization. Please note that the segregation requirements of 30 

TAC §336.362(a) must be met by separating Class A waste from Class B and C unless the Class 

A waste meets the stability requirements in 30 TAC §336.362(b)(2). In addition, 52 percent of 

the proposed waste for the FWF has a half-life greater than 35 years and is being considered 

“bulk” waste to be emplaced with B and C waste. In meeting the requirements of 30 TAC 

§336.733(b), this waste should be placed in reinforced concrete canisters or equivalent 

containment structures to provide stability after disposal, or meet the stability requirements in 30 

TAC §336.362(b)(2). 

Requested Action: The answer provided by the Applicant in its TNOD1 response is 

inadequate. Neither the new definition of bulk waste provided in OP-4.0, nor the two 

parameter checks (density and moisture) contained in Attachment D of OP-4.0, meet the 

requirements of 30 TAC §336.362(b)(2). If the Applicant intends to commingle 

containerized waste with non-containerized Class A waste streams which contain 

radionuclides with half-lives greater than 35 years, and which have transuranics in 

concentrations less than ten nanocuries/gram, then the Applicant must identify which of 

the 70 proposed FWF streams these will be, and propose meeting structural stability 

requirements per 30 TAC §336.362(b)(2)(A). (NUREG-1200, SRP 4.1, Section 4.3.5; and 

Waste Form Technical Position Paper, Dated January 24, 1991). 


Demonstrate that operations at the land disposal facility shall be conducted in compliance 

with the standards for radiation protection set out in 30 TAC Chapter 336, Subchapter D 

(relating to Standards for Protection Against Radiation), except for releases of 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 9 of 23

adioactivity in effluents from the land disposal facility, which shall be governed by 30 

TAC §336.724 (relating to Protection of the General Population from Releases of 

Radioactivity). Effort shall be made to maintain radiation exposures as low as is 

reasonably achievable. [30 TAC §336.726] 

Provide analyses of the protection of individuals during operations including assessments 

of expected exposures due to routine operations and likely accidents during handling, 

processing, storage, and disposal of waste. The analyses shall provide reasonable assurance 

that exposures will be controlled to meet the requirements of 30 TAC Chapter 336 

Subchapter D (relating to Standards for Protection Against Radiation). [30 TAC 

§§336.709(3), 336.726] 

1. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendix 8.0-6, Page 8.0-6-5, it is stated that a resuspension factor 

of 1.0E-9 m -1 was used for determining the inhalation dose in pathway A1. According to 

Atmospheric Environment by Nicholson, 1988, resuspension factors can vary greatly depending 

on the model used and site-specific conditions and can range from seven to eight orders of 

magnitude. For dry arid sites it may be appropriate to use a higher resuspension factor. 

Procedure OP-4.0, relating to emplacement of bulk waste, contains no provisions for 

personal protective equipment (PPE). It is unreasonable to assume that an ideal moisture 

content will be maintained for 1,000 m 2 of exposed waste under the subjected conditions of 

hand compaction. 

Requested Action: Please revise the inhalation doses to reflect a more conservative 

resuspension factor for pathway A1 or justify the use of the factor proposed in the application by 

demonstrating the ideal moisture content and how it will be maintained. 


3. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendix 8.0-6, page 8.0-6-9, third paragraph it is stated that a 

resuspension factor of 2.2E-9 m -1 was used for determining the inhalation dose in pathway A2. 

Resuspension factors and rates can vary by orders of magnitude when soils are mechanically 

disturbed. For dry, arid sites involving mechanical disturbance of soils it may be appropriate to 

use a higher resuspension factor. 

Requested Action: Please revise the inhalation doses to reflect a more conservative 

resuspension factor for pathway A2 or justify the use of the factor proposed in the application by 

demonstrating the ideal moisture content and how it will be maintained. 

4. Comment: The application in Volume 9, Appendix 8.0-6, page 8.0-3-6, fourth paragraph 

states that pathway A3 evaluates doses from radioactive gases generated from decomposition of 

waste containing H-3 and C-14. It is possible that gaseous release of these and other 

radionuclides could occur. 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 10 of 23

Requested Action: Please provide a discussion addressing gaseous release of all important 

gaseous or volatile radionuclides and any contribution to the pathway A3 dose from this 

chemical process as suggested in NUREG-1573, Sections 3.3.5.7.1 and 3.3.5.7.2. 

5. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendix 8.0-6, page 8.0-6-11, Table 8.0-6.3-1 indicates that a 

radon diffusion coefficient of 0.01 cm 2 s -1 is used in determining inhalation doses for pathway 

A3. The literature value, obtained from ANL/EAIS-8, Data Collection Handbook to Support 

Modeling the Impacts of Radioactive Material in Soil, for the material being disposed is 

approximately 0.03 cm 2 s -1 . The radon diffusion coefficient depends on the moisture and 

porosity of the material. According to OP-4.0, bulk waste is composed of soil, rubble, 

debris, and equipment. The correlation functions in NUREG/CR-3533 are intended for 

compacted earthen material, not heterogeneous material. Based on the heterogeneity of 

the Bulk Waste, it seems unreasonable to expect achieving a compaction density of 90% of 

maximum density. Therefore, it is recommended that the Applicant use a porosity value in 

the correlation function calculation that is more representative of bulk waste. 

Requested Action: Please revise the inhalation doses to reflect a more representative radon 

diffusion coefficient for pathway A3. Otherwise, provide the rationale and derivation for the 

value submitted. 

6. Comment: The application in Volume 10, Appendix 8.0-6, page 8.0-6-9, Table 8.0-6.2-1 

indicates a radon dose conversion factor of 46 mrem/yr per pCi/L outdoor in 10 % equilibrium 

for pathway A3. 

Requested Action: Please provide a discussion or calculations to show what influence 

changes in meteorological conditions, such as wind speed in an excavation, have on radon 

reaching equilibrium with its decay products. 

7. Comment: Answered in TNOD1. 

8. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendix 8.0-6, page 8.0-6-14, Table 8.0-6.4-1 indicates that a 

radon diffusion coefficient of 0.01 cm 2 s -1 is used in determining inhalation doses for pathway 

A6. The literature value, obtained from ANL/EAIS-8, Data Collection Handbook to Support 

Modeling the Impacts of Radioactive Material in Soil, for the material being disposed is 

approximately 0.03 cm 2 s -1 . 

Requested Action: Please revise the inhalation doses to reflect a more representative radon 

diffusion coefficient for pathway A3. Otherwise, provide the rationale and derivation for the 

value submitted. Also, see comment 5 above. 

9. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendix 8.0-6, page 8.0-6-14, Table 8.0-6.4-1 indicates a radon 

dose conversion factor of 46 mrem/yr per pCi/L outdoor in 10 % equilibrium for pathway A6. 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 11 of 23

Requested Action: See comment 6 above. 


11. Comment: The Applicant proposes to use outdoor staging and decontamination pads. 

However, the staging and decontamination pads proposed in the application are 

inadequate to prevent the spread of contamination to the environment, to protect waste 

shipments being staged and demurraged during inclement weather, and to provide a 

controlled environment for workers to safely handle many waste shipments. Volume 9A, 

Appendix 5.5, Operational Procedures and Plans, OP-3.0, Attachment A, Work Instruction for 

Overpacking Waste Containers, Section 3.0, paragraph 4, states that damaged waste containers 

will be over-packed in the specified area established for operations. OP-3.0, Attachment A, 

Section 3.0, paragraph 7, states that the operations workers will use materials such as plastic 

sheeting, personnel barriers, and catch basins to minimize the potential spread of contamination. 

The TCEQ believes that overpacking of damaged containers out in the open, may be an 

unacceptable practice due to the hazards of contamination being spread in an uncontrolled 

environment. NUREG/CR-3343, Section 7.2.1, Facility Requirements, p 86, discusses the need 

for enclosed facilities with ventilation systems to control contamination when waste containers 

need to be opened for inspection or when decontaminating highly contaminated equipment. 

These recommendations may be even more appropriate during the handling and overpacking of 

damaged waste containers. 

Requested Action: The TCEQ will require that the Applicant design and construct 

buildings to stage, demurrage, and decontaminate waste containers, vehicles, personnel, 

tools, and equipment for the FWF and CWF. (NUREG-1200, Standard Review Plan for the 

Review of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, SRP 4.1, 

Receipt and Inspection of Waste, Section 4.3.7, Disposition of Unacceptable Packages, p 4.1- 

10). Please provide appropriate design, construction and cost information pertaining to 

this requirement. 







Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 12 of 23





22. New Comment: Worker doses provided in Volume 9, Appendix 8.0-4, Worker Doses, 

Tables 34 through 37, show tenth value layer thicknesses of shielding to be used during various 

compact and federal waste handling activities. However, this is only the first step in the design 

of facilities and in the development of procedures to handle high-activity waste. 

Requested Action: With this and other information, please design facilities and develop 

procedures to handle containerized Class A, and Class B/C waste. Please use these calculations 

in the design and construction of new required buildings needed for staging and demurrage of 

waste and the decontamination of waste containers, vehicles, personnel, tools, and equipment for 

the compact and federal facilities. Since Appendix 8.0-4 worker dose calculations are performed 

using weighed-average isotopic compositions, the facility shielding design should be flexible 

enough to accommodate variations in expected waste package exposure rates. The fire 

protection system will also be an important element in the design of these facilities. Please also 

provide draft procedures for the handling of high-activity wastes which incorporate necessary 

ALARA design features. This information is necessary to demonstrate that the Applicant is 

prepared to safely handle all types of waste which it could receive. Note that this item cannot be 

handled as a license condition and will need to be completed prior to license issuance. 

(NUREG-1200, SRP 7.3, Radiation Protection Design Features, Section 2.2, Shielding, page 

7.3-2, first paragraph). 

23. New Comment: The Applicant’s TNOD1 response mentions that incoming waste streams 

are preliminarily identified as contact handled (routine) or remote handled (non-routine). 

Contact handled packages are addressed through routine procedures, and the preliminarily 

identified remote-handled packages will be individually addressed through the non-routine 

operations procedure. Actual data for incoming packages may vary from the estimates used to 

produce the application. The actual data (weight, shape, size, radiation exposure rate, or other 

special handling requirements) will be used to determine appropriate actions for non-routine 

packages. However, additional considerations to categorize waste should be added to the 

procedure other than exposure rate or whether the container has been breached. High alpha or 

gamma/beta activities can present significant internal and extremity hazards. Chemical toxicity 

of mixed waste should also be considered. 

Requested Action: In OP-5.0, please review and provide additional specific waste operation 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 13 of 23

and shipment conditions and characteristics for which non-routine operations should be 

considered. 

24. New Comment: The Applicant’s TNOD1 response preliminarily identified that remotehandled 

packages will be individually addressed through the non-routine operations procedure. 

Actual data for incoming packages may vary from the estimates used to produce the application. 

The actual data (weight, shape, size, radiation exposure rate, or other special handling 

requirements) will be used to determine appropriate actions for non-routine packages. Because 

of these variations in the waste, the Applicant’s procedures call for specific waste handling 

procedures to be developed at the time of waste receipt. In addition, OP-5.0, Non-routine 

Operations, states that procedures and a mock-up rehearsal shall be conducted before moving the 

material. Developing procedures when needed is not appropriate due to the time constraints to 

handle a potential backlog of waste containers and vehicles. The types and sizes of radioactive 

waste shipping containers are limited and pre-planning can be done before receipt of a shipment. 

In addition, an effective mockup or walkthrough can only be conducted by anticipating the types 

and conditions that may be present so that planning is required. Shielding, special handling 

requirements, and other ALARA precautions can be pre-planned depending on the waste 

containers radiation level, weight, and dimensions. When the actual shipment is received, these 

draft procedures could be more quickly adapted, approved and a mockup training conducted. 

Requested Action: Please provide two generic non-routine procedures to handle waste 

containers which the facility is most likely to receive. One procedure should be for the CWF and 

the other for the FWF. These procedures should be integral to the design and construction of the 

required staging, demurrage, and decontamination buildings. In the procedures, please provide 

examples of special handling requirements based upon a spectrum of weight, shape, size, and 

radiation exposure rates. Please modify or include additional ALARA design elements to the 

staging, demurrage, and decontamination building as development of the procedures may 

identify. (NUREG-1200, SRP 7.3, Radiation Protection Design Features and Operating 

Procedures, Section 4.3.1, Facility Design Features, through 4.3.4, Area Radiation and 

Airborne Radioactivity Monitoring Systems). 

25. New Comment: Vol. 10, Appendix 8.02, Federal Facility Inventory, p. 8.0-2-6, paragraph 

3, states that Texas regulations require that concentrations of transuranic radionuclides less than 

10 nCi/g must be placed in reinforced concrete canisters or equivalent containment structure to 

provide stability. However, the application spreadsheets do not provide conversions of Ci/m 3 to 

nCi/g which could be used to verify that the 10 nCi/g limit has not been exceeded. 

Requested Action: Please provide spreadsheets which demonstrate that the 10 nCi/g limit for 

various waste streams has or has not been exceeded. 

26. New Comment: Vol. 10, Appendix 8.02, Federal Facility Inventory, p. 8.0-2-9, paragraph 

4, indicates that WCS will track the total inventories of mobile, long-lived, and high gamma- 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 14 of 23

emitting radionuclides to ensure that the total activity of each such radionuclide does not exceed 

the inventory that was evaluated in the performance assessment. However, OP-1.0, 

Administrative Procedures, Section 5.3.6, Use and Management of WasteSoft © System, p. 11, 

indicates that all radionuclides on the manifest will be entered and tracked in WasteSoft © . Please 

note that all radionuclides will need to be tracked to ensure that the maximum curie content 

specified in the site license will not be exceeded. 

Requested Action: Please state definitively and describe the method by which all radionuclides 

in Appendix 8.02 and in Vol. 9A, Appendix 5.5, Section 5.3.6 will be tracked. 

27. New Comment: Vol. 10, Appendix 8.02, Federal Facility Inventory, Table 8.0-2-7, Waste 

Characteristics at the Federal Facility, Page 8.0-2-19, includes an Oak Ridge, Class A MLLRW 

with a volume of 2,453 m 3 . This waste is included in the bulk waste list provided in Appendix 

8.0-4, p. 8.0-4-11, Table 5 - FWF Bulk Waste Category Component Waste Streams. However, 

its waste form contains the descriptors “resin” and “dewatered sludges.” Section 3.5 of App. 8.0- 

4, FWF Contact handled Waste Category, states that a criterion for FWF contact handled waste 

is for waste forms with descriptors including “sludge.” 

Requested Action: Please justify inclusion of Oak Ridge, Class A MLLRW in the bulk waste 

category or change the classification of this waste stream and perform the applicable 

calculations. 

28. New Comment: In Vol. 10, Appendix 8.0-4, Worker Doses, Section 3.4, Page 8.0-4-9, 

Table 4, there are a list of weighed average isotopic compositions for the FWF bulk waste 

category. However, there do not appear to be spreadsheets provided which demonstrate how 

these weighted-average isotopic compositions were determined. This problem also exists for 

FWF contact handled waste in Table 6, FWF remote handled wastes in Table 8, CWF contact 

handled waste in Table 10, and CWF remote handled wastes in Table 12. 

Requested Action: Please provide additional spreadsheets which demonstrate how these 

weighted-average isotopic compositions were determined. 

29. New Comment: Vol. 10, Appendix 8.0-4, Worker Doses, Table 5 - FWF Bulk Waste 

Category Component Waste Streams, Page 8.0-4-11, contains a list of 30 bulk waste sources 

which will be added to the facility without an engineered container. Thirteen of these sources 

are marked as being mixed wastes. However, there is no description of the type and 

concentrations of the hazardous constituents within this waste. This information is needed to 

determine the effects of the waste on the design of the engineering barriers and other systems 

within the burial facility. It is also an important factor in the use of protective clothing for 

workers compacting this waste or breathing air potentially contaminated by the waste. 

Requested Action: Please provide information dealing with the stabilization of various 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 15 of 23

hazardous mixed waste constituents (i.e., asbestos, lead, mercury, organic, and others) in these 

waste streams and address how these hazardous constituents will affect workers. 

30. New Comment: In Vol. 10, Appendix 8.0-4,Worker Doses, Section 3.7, CWF Contact 

handled Waste Category, the second sentence on p. 8.0-4-15, states that a fraction of the waste 

will be eligible for bulk disposal, but this waste category is for compact waste having up to 200 

mrem/hr dose rates at 30 cm. This rate exceeds the 100 mrem/hr high radiation level requiring 

containerization. 

Requested Action: Please clarify or remove this statement, as bulk disposal is not proposed to 

be disposed of in the CWF. 

31. New Comment: In Vol. 10, Appendix 8.0-4,Worker Doses, Section 3.9.1, Simplifying 

Assumptions, p. 8.0-4-21, states that RH wastes were conservatively assumed to arrive shielded 

only to the maximum allowable dose rate of 10 mrem/hr at 2 m per 49 CFR §173.441(a) and (b). 

But this dose limit is at 2 meters from external surfaces of the exclusive-use vehicle and not from 

the waste package its self. 

Requested Action: Please explain how using the 10 mrem/hr dose rate at 2 meters is more 

conservative than using the 200 mrem/hr on contact exclusive use open limit or the 1,000 

mrem/hr on contact exclusive use closed vehicle limit to estimate the dose rate at 2 meters. 

Please revise and perform the applicable calculations, if necessary. 

32. New Comment: Vol. 10, Appendix 8.0-4, Worker Doses, Section 3.11, Wastes Excluded 

from the Worker Dose Assessment, p. 8.0-4-25, states, “. . . 100% of the expected volume of 

lower activity wastes from Vermont Yankee, South Texas Project and Comanche Peak are 

included in the FWF contact handled and FWF remote handled waste streams.” These wastes 

should not be included in the federal wastes streams. 

Requested Action: Please revise this sentence to reference the CWF and not the FWF. 

33. New Comment: Vol. 10, Appendix 8.0-4, Worker Doses, Section 3.11, Wastes Excluded 

from the Worker Dose Assessment, p. 8.0-4-25, Table 22 - Excluded Waste Streams, provides a 

table of the highest dose rate wastes expected to be received by the CWF. The middle paragraph 

states that the small volume of wastes listed in Table 22 do not have a significant impact on the 

waste volumes. Even though the volume of this waste is relatively small, the dose rates are very 

high (e.g., 4.39E+06 to 7.48E+06 mrem/hr) and would contribute significantly to worker dose. 

Requested Action: Please provide additional justification other than the volume to exclude 

these wastes from the worker dose calculations, or add these waste streams and perform the 

worker dose calculations. Note that these very high level waste streams should be used in the 

ALARA design of the new required compact staging, demurrage, and decontamination 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 16 of 23

uilding(s). Similarly, the very highest Class B/C wastes or other high activity, and difficult to 

safely handle federal wastes, should be used in the design of the federal staging, demurrage, and 

decontamination building(s). 

34. New Comment: Vol. 10, Appendix 8.0-4, Worker Doses, Section 5.0, Evaluation of 

Potential Shipping Configurations, page. 8.0-4-27 states that for receipt of each of the five waste 

streams, radiation levels were calculated at different distances from one of two different package 

geometries. The use of the term “waste streams” is confusing since this normally refers to waste 

from a particular generator(s). 

Requested Action: Please change the term “waste stream” when used in the context mentioned 

above to “waste categories,” “waste types,” or other term to more accurately reflect the 5 

categories used in the worker dose calculations (i.e., bulk waste, federal facility CH, federal 

facility RH waste, compact facility CH, and compact RH waste). 

35. New Comment: Vol. 10, Appendix 8.0-4, Worker Doses, Section 5.1.2, Anticipated 

Operational Scenario, p. 8.0-4-28, states that due to the waste being received in bulk (i.e., 

several intermodal or up to 77 55-gallon drums at a time, the actual worker doses resulting from 

package receipt and handling operations would be expected to be smaller than the doses 

calculated here. It seems that when receiving multiple containers, workers will have to work in 

higher background radiation levels. Therefore, doses to workers for multi-package shipments 

would actually be higher. 

Requested Action: Please explain this statement and consider in your discussion how increased 

general radiation levels due to the additional waste containers in the vicinity would affect the 

dose to workers. 

36. New Comment: Vol. 10, Appendix 8.0-4, Worker Doses, Table 35 - FWF Contact handled 

Waste Evaluation, page 8.0-4-45, shows that offloading at the staging pad for the position of 

Eq/Crane operator, 5 tenth value layers of shielding will be used to minimize the dose to the 

worker. 

Requested Action: Please explain how this level of shielding will be achieved. Please include 

the type(s), thicknesses, and positioning of the shield material in your explanation. 

37. New Comment: Vol. 10, Appendix 8.0-4, Worker Doses, Section 14, Summary, p. 8.0-4- 

60, states, “Doses from handling and disposing containerized wastes can be well within the 

prescribed regulatory limits, provided that special procedures are developed and sufficient 

shielding is present.” However, many of the activities listed in the calculations required one 

tenth value layer or more of shielding for the work to be performed. In addition, reliance upon 

significant levels of shielding throughout the entire duration of these activities would be 

difficult, if not impossible to achieve. An independent estimate done by the TCEQ staff, based 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 17 of 23

upon descriptions of volumes of waste provided in a previous LLRW application, found that 

doses to workers at the WCS site could potentially be 10 to 15 time higher than calculated in the 

WCS application. If this occurs then the applicant would be approaching the State and Federal 

annual total effective dose equivalence limit of 5,000 mrem/yr for several of their waste handling 

workers. The TCEQ is requiring that new waste handling and decontamination buildings be 

constructed which should be principally designed to reduce worker exposure. In addition, TCEQ 

is requiring that procedures be developed, in concert with the design of the new compact and 

federal waste buildings, for the safe handling of high radiation level and other waste. 

Requested Action: Please investigate and incorporate into the design of the staging, dumurrage, 

and decontamination buildings, innovative remote handling methods. These innovative methods 

might include: (1) remotely positioned cameras for inspections, (2) robotic handling of wastes, 

(3) various conveyors, (4) hot cells, and (5) other remote handling equipment and methods which 

may be available. The cost for this equipment could be offset by the potential saving in not 

having to hire additional staff should the sites administrative limits be exceeded. 

38. New Comment: WCS has not investigated the potential reduction in dose in filling the 

MCCs in the waste handling and decontamination building instead of using the current method 

of transporting the waste from the vehicle to the waste trench and then filling the MCC. 

Significant reduction in dose could be realized by working with the MCC in a lower general 

background area using remote controlled equipment that could do the majority of the packaging 

with the operator working from a safe distance. 

Requested Action: Please review the potential reduction in dose of filling and grouting the 

MCCs in the staging building instead of filling these containers in the waste trench and provide a 

discussion of your review and whether or not you would modify your operating procedures to 

accommodate these changes. 


Demonstrate that concentrations of radioactive material which may be released to the 

general environment in groundwater, surface water, air, soil, plants, or animals shall not 

result in an annual dose above background exceeding an equivalent of 25 millirems to the 

whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, or 25 millirems to any other organ of any member 

of the public. Effort shall be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the 

general environment as low as is reasonably achievable. [30 TAC §336.724] 

Pathways analyzed in demonstrating protection of the general population from releases of 

radioactivity including air, soil, groundwater, surface water, plant uptake, and exhumation 

by animals shall clearly identify and differentiate between the roles performed by the 

natural disposal site characteristics and design features in isolating and segregating the 

wastes. The analyses shall clearly demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that the 

exposures to humans from the release of radioactivity will not exceed the limits specified in 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 18 of 23

30 TAC §336.724 (relating to Protection of the General Population from Releases of 

Radioactivity). A minimum period of 1,000 years after closure or the period where peak 

dose occurs, whichever is longer, is required as the period of analysis to capture the peak 

dose from the more mobile long-lived radionuclides and to demonstrate the relationship of 

site suitability to the performance objective in 30 TAC §336.709(1) and to the performance 

objective in 30 TAC §336.724. [THSC §401.113(c)(1)] & [30 TAC §336.709(1)] 

1. Comment: In its response to TNOD1, the Applicant states that there is no groundwater 

recharge in the vicinity of the proposed CWF and FWF, and the Ogallala aquifer is not 

present in the vicinity of the proposed sites. A playa is present on the eastern edge of the 

CWF, surface depressions (playas?) also exist north, northwest, and southwest of the FWF 

(Figure 6.4-27f); and, according to Volume 3, Figure 6.6-3a, the OAG groundwater 

saturated thickness reaches zero at the northeastern corner of the FWF which indicates an 

intersection of groundwater and the proposed FWF. 

Requested Action: Please explain this apparent discrepancy and provide definitive data to 

support the conclusion that there is no groundwater recharge from the surface and that the 

Ogallala (High Plains) aquifer is not present in the vicinity of the proposed sites. 

2. Comment: In Volume 1A, page 8-28, Table 8.3-1, the exposure pathway for soil ingestion 

for the resident intruder is not shown under the Soil Pathway section. Secondary pathways, plant 

and livestock ingestion for the resident intruder are not shown in either table, nor do any of these 

pathways appear in the qualitative or detailed pathway analysis, but are used in the RESRAD 

modeling. In its response to TNOD1, the Applicant addresses Pathway D3, Intruder 

Drilling Scenario by stating that the methodology of NUREG/CR-4370 was used and that 

all other pathways were rejected to remain consistent with NUREG/CR-4370. The 

methodology in NUREG/CR-4370 uses the intruder driller scenario in conjunction with 

one or more of the other intruder scenarios. For the purposes of modeling potential future 

conditions or scenarios, it is recommended that the Applicant use the intruder drilling 

scenario as a preceding scenario to one of the groundwater pathway scenarios. For 

example, the intruder driller scenario should use a well depth that is consistent with one of 

the other groundwater pathway scenarios. 

Requested Action: Please address inconsistencies by clarifying or revising the tables listed 

above and the pathway analyses to reflect the exposure pathways mentioned above for the 

resident intruder and driller intruder. Also, please revise the modeling to maintain 

consistency between scenarios that are related. 

3. Comment: In Volume 10, Appendices 8.0-3 and 8.0-6, watering of livestock and crops with 

contaminated water does not appear in the qualitative or detailed pathway analysis and only 

watering of livestock appears in the RESRAD modeling. The irrigation rate in RESRAD is set 

to zero but yet the plant ingestion pathway is active. The plant ingestion pathway assumes a 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 19 of 23

portion or all of the resident intruder’s sustenance from crops is grown on-site and because the 

site is in a dry arid climate, irrigation would be necessary. In its response to TNOD1, the 

Applicant states that the use of crop irrigation would have led to “unreasonably 

pessimistic” estimates of waste leaching and in order to prevent this unrealistic modeling of 

waste leaching a value of zero was used as the irrigation rate. In conducting a performance 

assessment, NUREG-1573 suggests modeling current, or if known, potential future 

conditions of a site. According to a Texas Water Development Board study entitled 

“Groundwater Availability of the Southern Ogallala Aquifer in Texas and New Mexico: 

Numerical Simulations Through 2050,” a long-term average estimate of 14,051 acres are 

projected for irrigation for cotton, peanuts, and pasture in Andrews County. 

Requested Action: Please clarify or revise the appendices to include watering of livestock and 

crops, and revise the RESRAD modeling to include irrigation of crops. 


5. Comment: In Volume 10, Appendix 8.0-3, page 8.0-3-8, the seventh paragraph states that 

pathway S1, worker inadvertent soil ingestion, was eliminated from the detailed analysis because 

of administrative procedures and worker training. It is not recommended to rely solely on 

administrative procedures and worker training to avoid inadvertent soil ingestion. Based on the 

proposed waste emplacement strategies for the FWF, i.e. hand compaction, it may not be 

reasonable that this pathway be eliminated from consideration. 

Requested Action: Please include pathway S1 in the detailed analysis or justification for 

exclusion from the pathway analysis. 


7. Comment: In Volume 10, Appendix 8.0-6, page 8.0-6-17, Table 8.0-6.4-3 provides doses to 

the on-site resident from gas emanation through the cover from H-3, C-14, and Rn-222. The 

Compact inventory includes three isotopes of iodine. The federal inventory includes I-129. 

Requested Action: Please clarify or revise the RESRAD resident intruder simulation to reflect 

the addition of iodine for pathway A6 or otherwise justify the exclusion of iodine from the 

simulation. 



10. Comment: In its response to TNOD1, the Applicant states that the lack of other 

exposure pathways is consistent with the NRC’s approach in NUREG/CR-4370 and that 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 20 of 23

Pathway A6 evaluates additional exposure pathways to the intruder resident that were not 

included in the NRC’s analysis. As mentioned in comment 2 above, the intruder driller 

methodology in NUREG/CR-4370 is an analysis to be used in conjunction with one or more 

of the other intruder scenarios described in NUREG/CR-4370. Pathway A6 only addresses 

gas emanation through the cover and not other relevant exposure pathways that should be 

included in the intruder resident scenario. 

Requested Action: Please address this inconsistency and revise the scenarios, or provide a 

justification for why no other pathways were evaluated. 

11. Comment: In Volume 8B, Attachment 3.0-3.18, Wind Erosion Analysis, the Applicant 

states it will take 7.84E+03 years to erode to the top of the waste while the erosion parameter 

used for all the simulations in RESRAD is set to zero. 

Requested Action: Please see Requested Actions for Comment 1 in Section 8.1.1 and 

comment 17 in Section 8.3.2. Also, revise the RESRAD modeling accordingly. 



14. Comment: In its response to TNOD1, the Applicant states that RESRAD was not used 

to calculate infiltration and it would serve no purpose to vary the infiltration parameters. 

However, as part of the initial RESRAD analysis submitted, the Applicant performed a 

sensitivity analysis on the runoff coefficient. 

Requested Action: Please perform a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis on any parameters in 

RESRAD that might have an effect on the modeling results. Also, please see Comments 2, 

3, and 4 related to infiltration, in Section 3.6. 



17. Comment: The application in Volume 1A, pages 8-26 and 8-27, and Table 8.3-1 does not 

consider erosion of the site in the soil pathway and direct external pathway. Erosion, however, is 

discussed elsewhere in the application: vertical wind erosion to the top of the waste at 

approximately 7,800 years (Volume 8B, Attachment 3.0-3.18), and potential eastward migration 

of Monument Draw, New Mexico toward the site (Volume 3, page 4-23). 

Requested Action: The Applicant’s response to comment 1 in Section 8.1.1 is inadequate. 

Please revise and evaluate erosion. The Applicant has now decided that the previous 

Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 21 of 23

determination of 7,800 years for vertical wind erosion to expose the top of the waste is in 

error. The Applicant should likewise reevaluate the determination of 1.18 in/yr of parallel 

slope erosion related to the eastward migration of Monument Draw. The Applicant is 

asked to provide a series of cross sections from the facilities to Monument Draw showing 

progressive “parallel slope retreat” at 1.18 in/yr for 20,000 years. At what point in the 

future, using the Applicant’s erosion rates and assuming parallel slope retreat, will the 

facility be first impacted by erosion? Please analyze erosion of the site creating a direct 

external pathway. 


Provide information regarding the types, significance, and magnitudes of releases of 

radioactivity associated with accidents or unusual operational conditions. The information 

should be sufficient to enable analysis of projected radiological impacts to any individual. 















Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 22 of 23




Demonstrate how design, operation, and closure of the land disposal facility shall ensure 

protection of any individual inadvertently intruding into the disposal site and occupying 

the site or contacting the waste at any time after active institutional controls over the 

disposal site are removed. [30 TAC §336.725] Provide analyses of the protection of 

individuals from inadvertent intrusion including demonstration that there is reasonable 

assurance that the waste classification and segregation requirements will be met and that 

adequate barriers to inadvertent intrusion will be provided. [30 TAC §§336.725, 

336.709(2)] 


Attachment 8 


1/30/2006 Page 23 of 23

Attachment 9 



Quality Assurance and Quality Control 


Provide a single organization chart showing how major organizations or companies 

interrelate with one another throughout the site characterization, design, construction, 

operation, and closure of the facility. 



Provide organizational charts and functional responsibility that denote lines of 

responsibility and areas of authority within each major organization in the project 

throughout the site characterization, design, construction, operation, and closure of the 

facility. 



3. Comment: Volume 1A, Section 10, page 10-5, states “During the licensing preparation 

phase, WCS has contracted with URS Corporation to prepare the reference design for the facility 

and support WCS in the development of this application. Cooke-Joyce Inc. has been contracted 

to perform the site characterization studies.” The application also states that “WCS evaluated 

the design contractor’s QA Program and determined that it was acceptable, meeting the WCS 

requirements.” The application does not contain the QA programs for URS Corporation and 

Cooke-Joyce Inc. nor does it contain evidence of methods or audits that WCS followed in doing 

the evaluations for these contractors. 

Requested Action: Please provide evidence that the QA Programs for URS Corporation and 

Cooke-Joyce Inc., have been found acceptable to conduct the tasks for which they were hired, as 

recommended in NUREG-1200, SRP 9.1, Section 4.3.1(1.3). The Applicant’s TNOD1 

response stated that a copy of the surveillance review of URS’ QA Program was attached. 

However, this surveillance review could not be found. In addition, the Applicant stated 

that Cook-Joyce, Inc., does not have a documented QA Program and is, therefore, required 

to work under the WCS QA program and procedures. If this is the case, then the 

Applicant will need to provide evidence, possibly in the form of a procurement document, 

that states that Cook-Joyce, Inc., will follow the WCS QA program and provide additional 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 14

documentation, in the form of records, that the WCS program was followed by Cook- 

Joyce, Inc. In addition, important elements such as quality assurance and quality control 

for site-characterization, appear to be missing from the WCS QA program. Please 

describe how the Applicant will ensured Cook-Joyce’s and INTERA’s quality assurance 

and quality controls over these functions. (Please refer to NUREG-1200, SRP 9.1, Section 

4.3.1(1.3), which addresses delegation of major portions of an Applicant’s QA program). 


5. New Comment: Volume 1A, Appendix 9.0, Quality Assurance, Section 9.1.1, Company 

Interrelations, Part 1, provides a table of WCS QA Program Applicability Assignments. 

However, there are several important activities that are not listed as being under the QA & QC 

Program. These include: (1) canister construction and inspection; (2) completion and inspection 

of special processes; and (3) radiation safety related procedures. NUREG/CR-3343, 

Recommended Radiation Protection Practices for Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites, Section 8.4, 

Radiation Protection Program Elements, p. 94, first paragraph, recommends that the following 

radiation safety related procedures, be covered by the QA program: (1) calibration of radiation 

detection and measurement equipment; (2) external dosimetry; (3) in-vitro and in-vivo biosurveillance; 

(4) radiation and contamination surveillance; (8) airborne radioactivity 

surveillance; (9) respiratory protection; (6) waste receipt; and (7) waste sampling and testing. 

Requested Action: Please include the items listed above in the appropriate QA program plan 

and procedures and provide a copy of these procedures to TCEQ. (Please refer also to NUREG- 

1200, SRP 9.1, Quality Assurance, Section 4.3.2, Quality Assurance Program, Parts (1.1)(a)). 


Describe measures that ensure that entities performing QA/QC activities have authority 

and freedom to: 1) identify problems, 2) initiate, recommend or provide solutions, and 3) 

verify implementation of a chosen solution. 

1. Comment: Volume 11A, Appendix 9.0, Quality Assurance, Procedure QA-16.2, Stop Work, 

and the QAP Manual, Section 1, Organization, p. 7, state that all WCS employees and 

contractors are responsible for issuing verbal stop work orders. However, NUREG-1200, SRP 

9.1, Quality Assurance, Section 4.3.1, Organization, Part 2.4(a), and Section 4.3.1. Part 2.5, 

recommends having designated QA personnel sufficiently free from direct pressures resulting 

from cost and schedule, which have the responsibility to stop unsatisfactory work and control 

further processing, delivery, or installation of nonconforming material. In addition, QA-16.2 

does not contain a procedural step for the resolution of disputes involving quality between QA 

personnel and other departments, as also recommended in NUREG-1200. 

Requested Action: Please describe, in the implementing procedure and/or QAP manual, how 

the Applicant will address the need to have designated QA personnel sufficiently free from direct 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 14

pressures resulting from cost and schedule, to issue stop work orders, as recommended in federal 

guidance. It is not apparent from the TNOD1 response and Volume 1A, Section 10, Part 

10.3.13, Summary of the 26 Positions, whether the Applicant intends to hire a dedicated 

onsite QA staff. Please state whether a dedicated QA staff will be maintained on-site, how 

many QA personnel will be maintained, and all job functions of these individuals (i.e., QA 

and other functions when not performing QA inspections). 


Describe how entities with primary responsibility for ensuring implementation of the 

QA/QC program have access to management, as necessary. 



Describe measures to implement and monitor the QA/QC program. 

1. Comment: Volume 11A, Appendix 9.0, Quality Assurance, Procedure QA-5.1, Standard 

Operating Procedures and Work Instructions, Section 5.3.5, SOP Concurrence Review and 

Acceptance, describes the various concurrence reviews performed for SOP and Work 

Instructions, but this list does not include review and acceptance by a member of the Quality 

Assurance organization. 

Requested Action: Please add, in QA-5.1, Sections 4.3 and 5.3.5, and Example 4 - Signature 

Block, additional requirements for a QA organization review. In its TNOD1 response, the 

Applicant stated, “QA-5.1, ‘Standard Operating Procedures and Work Instructions,’ 

Section 5.3.5, SOP Concurrence Review and Acceptance states, ‘The Responsible Manager 

shall obtain SOP Concurrence Review and Acceptance in accordance with the following: 

Section 5.3.5.1 SOP concurrence review shall be obtained from management with a span of 

authority over any supporting responsibilities assigned by the SOP.’ If the procedure scope 

involves quality-affecting work, the Responsible Manager is required to obtain 

concurrence of the QA Manager.” This statement does not address the TNOD1 comment. 

A paragraph similar to QA-5.1, 5.3.5.2, which discusses the RSO’s SOP concurrence 

review responsibilities should be added to this section to address the QA Manager’s 

concurrence review responsibilities. This paragraph should refer the reader back to QA- 

2.1, Quality Planning, Section 4.1, Classification into Quality Level. Please add the 

information listed above. (Please refer also to NUREG-1200, SRP 9.1, Quality Assurance, 

Section 4.3.2, Quality Assurance Program, Part (2.1)(a), p. 9.1-9). 


3. Comment: Volume 11A, Appendix 9.0, Quality Assurance, QAP-100, Section 9, Control of 

Special Processes, describes the need for quality controls for special processes. These processes 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 14

would include such things as: welding, concrete batching, waste and soil compaction, liner 

placement and other processes. However, a procedure which would implement control of special 

processes was apparently not provided in this appendix or elsewhere in the application. NUREG- 

1200, SRP 9.1, Quality Assurance, Section 4.3.9, Special Processes, p. 9.1-17 recommends 

inclusion of the following elements to control special process activities: 

(1) Organizational responsibilities, including those for the QA organization, are described for 

the qualification of special processes, equipment, and personnel. 

(2) Procedures are established for recording evidence of acceptable accomplishment of 

special processes using qualified procedures, equipment, and personnel. 

(3) Qualification records of procedures, equipment, and personnel associated with special 

processes are established, filed, and kept current. 

Requested Action: Please review and revise procedures for control of Special Processes. 

Please include in Procedure QA-4.1, Procurement Document Control, Section 4.1, Content 

of Procurement Documents, or other applicable location, a section which addresses Special 

Processes. Please ensure the three elements listed above are addressed. 

4. New Comment: Volume 1A, Section 9, Section 9.1.1, Company Interrelation, provides a 

table entitled “WCS QA Program Applicability Assignment,” however, this table is not listed in 

the QAP-100 or in the QA procedures. In addition, Procedure QA-2.1, Quality Planning, Section 

4.1, “Classification into Quality Level,” does not contain or reference this table but uses a very 

general statement for classifying whether an activity is quality related or not. 

Requested Action: Please incorporate the “WCS QA Program Applicability Assignment” table 

in the QAP and in QA-2.1. Please add a statement in Procedure QA-5.1, Section 5.3.5, SOP 

Concurrence Review and Acceptance, which states the SOP concurrence review responsibilities 

of the QA Manager, and references QA-2.1 for determining whether QA concurrence is required 

or not. (Please refer to NUREG-1200, SRP 9.1, Quality Assurance, Section 4.3.2, Quality 

Assurance Program, Part (2.1)(a), p 9.1-9, for additional guidance). 


Describe qualification requirements for persons responsible for ensuring effective 

implementation of the QA/QC program. 


2. New Comment: In its TNOD1 response, the Applicant stated “QC inspectors verifying 

compliance of quality-affecting work activities will be properly trained and qualified prior to the 

commencement of all activities being inspected.” 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 14

The WCS inspection service contractor for quality-affecting inspections shall be required to meet 

the following requirements. 

(1) Inspectors verifying quality-affecting work shall be trained and qualified in the 

specific inspection process and the quality requirements. 

(2) Training and qualification processes shall be documented. 

(3) If the inspection process requires certification as dictated in the technical 

requirements, the certification shall be provided to WCS. 

(4) WCS QA will verify that these requirements are satisfied prior to start of quality 

affecting inspections.” 

We note, however, that procedure, QA-4.1, Procurement Document Control, which provides the 

process for developing contractual requirements, does not specify training, qualification, and 

certification requirements. 

Requested Action: Please specify in QA-4.1, or other appropriate document, the above-listed 

requirements. 


Describe measures to ensure that there is regular management review within the QA/QC 

program to assess effectiveness of the program. 


2. New Comment: Volume 11, Appendix 10.4, WCS Training and Qualification Program, 

Section 4.3, Quality Assurance Indoctrination and Training, states that WCS employees who 

perform quality affecting work activities will receive QA Indoctrination Training. However, this 

training appears to be a very basic overview of the WCS QA program. Additional requirements 

are needed for training, qualifying, and certifying of QA inspectors. Section 4.3 also states, 

“Detailed QA training is provided on the QA Program and job specific procedures prior to an 

employee beginning work. WCS managers are responsible for assuring that personnel 

performing work under their supervision are appropriately trained.” This statement does not say 

who will be performing this training and what this training will entail. The person performing 

the training should be a qualified inspector in the activities being taught. The elements listed in 

the Applicant’s response to TNOD1, Comment 1, from Section 9.2.1 should be addressed in the 

QA training program. These QA inspector training recommendations included: (1) Personnel 

verifying activities affecting quality are trained and qualified in the principles, techniques, and 

requirements of the activity being performed; (2) Proficiency tests are given to those personnel 

performing and verifying activities affecting quality, and acceptance criteria are developed to 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 5 of 14

determine if individuals are properly trained and qualified; (3) Certificate of qualifications 

clearly delineates (i) the specific functions personnel are qualified to perform and (ii) the criteria 

used to qualify personnel in each function; and (4) Proficiency of personnel performing and 

verifying activities affecting quality is maintained by retraining, re-examining, and/or recertifying 

as determined by management or program commitment. 

Requested Action: Please provide indoctrination, training, and qualification program 

requirements for persons responsible for ensuring effective implementation of the QA/QC 

program. 


Provide a description of how design control elements of the QA/QC plan are to be planned, 

documented, and implemented prior to the start of design work. 

1. Comment: Volume 11A, Appendix 9.0, QAP-100, Quality Assurance Program, Section 3, 

Design Control, describes various design control processes but apparently does not provide a 

scope for the design control program as recommended in NUREG-1200, SRP 9.1, Section 

4.3.3(1), Design Controls. In addition, Volume 11A, Appendix 9.0, QA Procedure QA-3.1, 

Design Control, Section 4.3.4 apparently does not provide specific design inputs which should 

be evaluated when developing the design control package. Federal guidance in the NUREG 

recommends that the scope of the design control program include: field design engineering; 

physics, seismic, stress, thermal, and geotechnical; associated computer programs; compatibility 

of materials; accessibility for in-service inspection, maintenance, and repair; quality standards; 

etc. 

Requested Action: If present or future in-house design work will not be performed under 

the WCS QA plan, then please remove Procedure QA-3.1 and modify the description in 

QAP-100 about how design control will be handled. Please also incorporate applicable 

design control elements into QA-4.1, Procurement Document Control, to ensure an adequate 

contractor design control program. However, if Cook-Joyce, Inc. or other contractor 

currently under the WCS QA program is performing work which involves inputs to the 

design process and/or if there exists the potential for future in-house design work, then 

QA-3.1 should be kept in the procedures. Also, Procedure QA-3.1 should be kept if a 

contractor, now or in the future, does not have its own QA program and would need to use 

the WCS QA design control procedure. Please review the need for removing Procedure 

QA-3.1. Please make appropriate changes to the procedures and state why specific design 

control elements should or should not be included in the WCS QA procedures. 


Describe measures (including personnel and their responsibilities and procedures) to 

confirm that the design of the structures, systems, and components are suitable for the 

intended purpose (design verification) including: 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 6 of 14

(1) Design review; 

(2) Peer review; and 

(3) Alternate calculation methods (if applicable) 




Describe measures for identifying and controlling design interrelationships and for 

providing coordination between participating design organizations. 



Describe how design changes will be subject to design control measures commensurate 

with those applied to the original design. 

1. Comment: Volume 11A, Appendix 9.0, QAP-100, Design Change Control, p. 14, states, 

“Changes to final designs and nonconforming items dispositioned as ‘use-as-is’ or ‘repair,’ shall 

have documented justification for use and are subject to the same design control measures and 

reviews as those applied to the original design.” However, this requirement is apparently not 

listed in QA-3.1, Design Control. NUREG-1200, SRP 9.1, Section 4.3.3(5.1), Design Controls, 

recommends that design and specification changes, including fields changes, be subject to the 

same design controls that were applicable to the original design. 



QAP-100, which addresses how design control will be handled. Please also incorporate 

applicable design control elements into QA-4.1, Procurement Document Control, to ensure 

an adequate contractor design control program. 

There may be reason to maintain QA-3.1, and incorporate the recommendation of 

NUREG-1200 that design and specification changes, including fields changes, are subject to 

the same design controls that were applicable to the original design. QA-3.1 should be 

maintained if work being performed by Cook-Joyce, Inc., or other contractor currently 

under the WCS QA program is involved with inputs to the design process and/or if there 

exits the potential for future in-house design work. Also, QA-3.1 should be maintained if a 

contractor, now or in the future, does not have its own QA program and would need to use 

the WCS QA design control procedure. Please review the need for removing Procedure 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 7 of 14

QA-3.1. Please make appropriate changes to the procedures and state why specific design 

control elements should or should not be included in the WCS QA procedures. 


Describe how errors are documented, and how corrective action is to be taken to prevent 

recurrence of errors. 



Describe measures to ensure that materials, parts, and components can be identified 

accurately once obtained and located on site. 

1. Comment: The procedures listed in Volume 11A, Appendix 9.0, Section 8 do not appear to 

adequately describe measures that ensure that the materials, parts, and components can be 

identified or controlled. Instead, the application states that “the WCS managers are responsible 

for ensuring that all applicable materials, parts, and components that are quality affecting are 

properly identified.” It goes on to state that the “contractors are responsible for establishing 

procedures to identify and control material, parts, and components, which are used for quality 

affecting work or activities.” These statements appear to be general comments on what should 

be done, but do not offer plans or procedures to verify the acceptability of the materials, parts, 

and components used in the facility. NUREG 1200, SRP 9.1, Section 4.3.8, recommends 

providing the following descriptions and procedures to ensure acceptability for this program: 

• A description of the controls or methods used for item identification. 

• Procedures used to ensure identification is maintained to preclude use of incorrect or 

defective items 

• A set of procedures used to establish traceability of appropriate documentation relating to 

identification of materials, parts, and components of the facility. 

• Procedures for the identification or material, parts, and components is verified and 

documented before they are released for fabrication, assembling, shipping, and 

installation. 

Requested Action: Please provide information previously requested. Please provide 

procedures and descriptions of the measures which ensure that materials, parts, and components 

can be identified and controlled, as recommended in federal guidance. The responses to 

comments in Sections 9.4.4, 9.4.5, and 9.4.6 indicate that a QA program will be developed 

at a later time by third party “contractors.” The Applicant’s reasoning is that it cannot 

provide a QA/QC program when the design drawings are not finalized. However, this does 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 8 of 14

not prevent the Applicant from submitting a preliminary QA/QC plan pertaining to the 

sections mentioned above. Moreover, the TCEQ cannot review a plan that has not been 

submitted. Please submit an appropriate QA/QC plan that addresses these concerns. 


Describe measures to ensure that materials, parts and components remain in compliance 

with design specifications in storage at the site. 

1. Comment: Volume 1A, Section 9.4.5 addresses this section by stating that “QA audits and 

surveillances will monitor compliance with the applicable storage requirements.” However, 

these audit and surveillances involved with materials, parts and components are not mentioned in 

the QAP manual or in the implementing procedures. 

Requested Action: Please provide information previously requested. Please address these 

concerns on the compliance of materials, parts, and components with design specifications in 

storage. Please consider in your response developing procedures which address: (1) who will 

perform the audits; (2) what checklists will be used; (3) provisions for submitting audit results to 

the governing state agency; (3) description of corrective actions; and (4) the time frame to 

complete these actions. 


Describe measures to control materials, parts, or components that do not conform to 

requirements in order to avoid their inadvertent use. Include measures for identification, 

segregation, disposition, repair or rework procedures, and documentation. 

1. Comment: Volume 11A, Appendix 9.0, Section 15 does not adequately describe measures to 

ensure that the materials, parts, and components that do not conform to requirements are not 

used. Instead, the application indicates that these matters will be addressed during the 

construction phase. However, this does not verify the acceptability of the measures to be utilized 

to avoid the use of non-conforming materials, parts, and components in the facility. NUREG- 

1200, SRP 9.1, Section 4.3.15 and 4.3.16, recommends providing the following descriptions and 

procedures to ensure acceptability for this program: 

(a) 

(b) 

Procedures to established and describe the identification, documentation, segregation, 

review, disposition and notification to affected organizations of nonconforming materials, 

parts, or components. The procedures should also identify authorized individuals 

responsible for the independent review of non-conforming items, including their 

disposition and closeout. 

Documentation to identify the nonconforming item, describe the nonconformance, and 

the disposition of the nonconforming item. The inspection requirements and signature 

approval of the disposition should also be included. The procedures should describe how 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 9 of 14

non-conformities are corrected or resolved before the initiation of the pre-operational test 

program on the item. 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

Procedures describing how reworked, repaired, and replacement items are inspected and 

tested in accordance with the original inspection and test requirements or acceptable 

alternatives. 

Nonconformance reports are periodically analyzed by the QA organization to show 

quality trends, and the significant results are reported to upper management for review 

and assessment. 

Procedures to establish and describe an effective corrective action program. This 

corrective action should be documented and initiated following the determination of a 

condition adverse to quality (such as nonconformance, failure, malfunction, deficiency, 

deviation, and defective material and equipment) to preclude recurrence. 

Followup action should be taken by the QA organization to verify proper implementation 

of corrective action and to close out the corrective action in a timely manner 

Requested Action: Please provide information previously requested. Please provide 

procedures and descriptions of the measures relating to the non-conformance of the materials, 

parts, and components used in the facility, as recommended by NUREG-1200, SRP 9.1, Sections 

4.3.15 and 4.3.16. 


Describe measures that ensure that sufficient records are maintained to furnish evidence or 

activities affecting quality including, but not limited to: 

(1) Type of operation, inspector, equipment, data recorder; 

(2) Test logs, operating logs, results of reviews, drawings, inspections, tests, audits, 

monitoring of work performance, materials analysis, personnel records, training 

records, equipment and procedure manuals; and 

(3) Notation of any deficiencies and corrective action taken. 




Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 10 of 14

4. New Comment: Volume 11A, Appendix 9.0, Quality Assurance, Procedure QA-3.1, Design 

Control, Section 4.3.7.3 discusses documentation of design implementation. NUREG-1200, 

SRP 9.1, Quality Assurance, Section 4.3.6, Document Control, Part 3 recommends that 

procedures be established and described to provide for the preparation of drawings pertaining to 

as-built conditions and related documentation in a timely manner to accurately reflect the actual 

design. 



QAP-100 addressing how design control will be handled. Please also incorporate 

applicable design control elements into QA-4.1, Procurement Document Control, to ensure 

an adequate contractor design control program. There may be reason to maintain QA-3.1 

and incorporate the recommendation of NUREG-1200 in QA-3.1, Design Control, Section 

4.3.7.10. Please review the need for removing Procedure QA-3.1. Please make appropriate 

changes to the procedures and describe why specific design control elements should or 

should not be included in the WCS QA procedures. 


Describe measures that ensure that a program for inspection is established and 

implemented to verify conformance with the documented instructions, procedures, or 

drawings including: 

(1) Inspections to verify procedures, or to accept or reject completed work; 

(2) Inspection procedures and instructions with necessary drawings and specifications 

are available for use before the inspections are performed; 

(3) Replaced, reworked, modified, or repaired items are inspected in accordance with 

original inspection requirements; 

(4) Inspectors are appropriately qualified and independent of the group performing the 

activity being inspected; 

(5) Indirect control by monitoring is used if direct inspection is impossible or 

disadvantageous; and 

(6) Procedures to identify inspection status by use of markings. 


2. Comment: Volume 11A, Appendix 9.0, Quality Assurance, Procedure QA-10, Inspections, 

Section 4.3, states that the Inspector’s Manager is responsible for ensuring that personnel 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 11 of 14

performing inspections are qualified and independent of the work being inspected. However, 

there do not appear to be safeguards in the QAP Manual or in QA-10 which ensure that 

inspectors are sufficiently free from direct pressures resulting from cost and schedule. NUREG- 

1200, SRP 9.1, Quality Assurance, Section 4.3.2, Quality Assurance Program, Part 4.3.10, 

Inspection, (2.1), p 9.1-18, provides recommendations which should be implemented in the QA 

procedures. The NUREG states that individuals performing inspections are other than those who 

performed or directly supervised the activity being inspected and do not report directly to the 

immediate supervisors who are responsible for the activity being inspected. It also states that if 

the individuals performing inspections are not part of the QA organization, then the inspection 

procedures, personnel qualification criteria, are independent from undue pressure such as cost 

and schedule and should be reviewed and found acceptable by the QA organization before the 

initiation of the activity. 

Requested Action: If the QA Manager will manage all inspections, please state this in the 

appropriate QA procedure(s). In the procedure, also state what the role of the QA 

Manager, dedicated QA personnel, and other WCS management or staff will be in 

managing the inspection process. 




Describe testing procedures to ensure that testing is conducted: 

(1) By trained and appropriately qualified personnel; 

(2) According to written test procedures that incorporate requirements and acceptance 

limits; 

(3) Using adequate test instrumentation and equipment; 

(4) Under suitable environmental conditions; and 

(5) Using adequate documentation to ensure that test requirements are satisfied. 



Describe measures taken to ensure that tools, gauges, instruments, and other measuring 

and testing devices are identified, controlled, adjusted, and calibrated at specified periods 

to maintain accuracy including: 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 12 of 14

(1) Adjustment and calibration using certified equipment or reference standards 

having known valid relationships to nationally recognized standards; 

(2) If no national standard exists, document the basis for calibration; 

(3) If equipment is found out of calibration, describe methods for evaluating previous 

test results and repeating testing if necessary; and 

(4) Describe methods for maintenance of documentation indicating calibration status of 

testing equipment. 





Describe the program and that of the principal contractors for conducting comprehensive 

planned and periodic audits to verify compliance with all aspects of the QA/QC program to 

determine the effectiveness of the program including: 

(1) External audits to be performed on the respective suppliers; 

(2) Internal audits to be performed within the organization; 

(3) Planning and scheduling of audits; 

(4) Conduct of audits in accordance with written procedures by appropriately trained 

personnel not having direct responsibility in the area being audited; and 

(5) Documentation of audit results with review by management personnel and (if 

needed) follow-up action, including re-audit. 

1. Comment: QAP-100, Quality Assurance Program, procedure QA-18.1, Audits does not 

contain requirements to ensure that audits and surveillances are performed to ensure that 

performance objectives and design bases listed in the WCS application are accomplished as 

recommended by NUREG-1200, SRP 9.1, Quality Assurance, Section 4.3.18, Audits, Part 1.4.c 

and 1.5, p. 9.1-24. 

Requested Action: Please add to QAP-100, Quality Assurance Program, procedure QA-18.1, 

Audits, or other appropriate document, requirements to ensure that audits and surveillances are 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 13 of 14

performed to ensure that the performance objectives of 30 TAC §336.709, Technical and 

Environmental Analyses, and design bases listed in the application are accomplished. Please 

provide a schedule for these audits and surveillances. Audits and surveillance will need to be 

initiated early enough to assure an effective QA program during the design, procurement and 

contracting activities. This requested action is to provide a demonstration of the NUREG- 

1293, Quality Assurance Guidance for Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, 

recommendation which would show that WCS has a planned, organized, and documented 

approach to meeting the performance objectives and technical requirements of 10 CFR 

Part 61. Please list which proposed audits, inspections, and/or surveillances address each 

of the performance objectives of 30 TAC §336.709. 


3. Comment: QAP-100, Quality Assurance Program, Page 38, Trending, states that nonconformance 

documentation shall be periodically analyzed by the WCS QA to identify quality 

trends in accordance with Section 16, Corrective Action. However, WCS procedures do not 

include provisions for trending. Please consider the recommendation of NUREG-1200, SRP 9.1, 

Quality Assurance, Section 4.3.18, Audits, Part 2.2, p 9.1-25, which states that audit and 

surveillance deficiency data are analyzed and trended and that resultant reports, which indicate 

quality trends and the effectiveness of the QA programs, are given to management for review, 

assessment, corrective action and follow up. 

Requested Action: TCEQ does not agree with WCS’s response that the current approach 

to trending and analysis provided in the QA Plan is sufficient and changes to individual 

WCS procedures for data trending are not necessary. In addition to trending of 

nonconformance and corrective actions, trending of results of inspections, surveillances, 

and audits should also be performed. WCS has stated in their TNOD1 Response that 

trending and analysis of quality assurance data is a critical component of the QA process. 

Please include trending and analysis of nonconformance items, corrective action, and 

inspection, audit, and surveillance results in the appropriate procedures. 

Attachment 9 


1/30/2006 Page 14 of 14

Attachment 10 



Personnel 


Provide the organizational structure of the Applicant, both offsite and onsite, including a 

description of lines of authority and assignments of responsibilities, whether in the form of 

administrative directives, contract provisions, or otherwise. [30 TAC §336.706(a)(2)] 


2. Comment: The organizational chart, Figure 10-3, on page 10-7 Section 10 of the 

application, shows five surface workers and five landfill workers, but does not specify 

which of these workers will work in the CWF and which will work on the FWF. 

Requested Action: Please modify this chart to show which workers will be assigned 

between the two facilities. 


Provide the technical qualifications, including training and experience, of the Applicant 

and members of the Applicant’s staff to engage in the proposed activities. Provide the 

Applicant’s technical qualifications necessary to protect the occupational and public health 

and safety and the environment. [THSC §401.107(a)] 

New Overall Comment: It is recognized that processing operations at the Mixed Waste 

Treatment Facility (MWTF) are authorized by a license issued by the TDSHS; however, 

operational health physics procedures employed at the MWTF have a direct bearing on the 

Applicant’s technical qualifications. The following questions relate to the Applicant’s 

operational health physics program, and are therefore relevant to technical review of the 

application and evaluation of the Applicant’s technical qualifications to conduct the proposed 

activities. 

1. New Comment: On November 16, 2005, the TCEQ received a document from WCS titled 

“Limited Restart Plan for the MWTF.” This document describes a series of occupational 

exposures to personnel from Pu-239 and Am-241 as a result of operations conducted in the 

MWTF. The document also provides a list of criteria that must be addressed before work can be 

resumed in the MWTF. An additional document titled “Root Cause Report” was submitted to 

the TCEQ on December 8, 2005. 

Requested Action: Please provide a thorough discussion of the processing operations conducted 

Attachment 10 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 4

in the MWTF in relation to the employee exposures. 

2. New Comment: The document dated November 16, 2005, states that the body burdens of 

Pu-239 and Am-241 received by the employees do not represent a safety or health issue. 

Requested Action: Please provide justification for this statement, including dose 

reconstructions for the affected employees. Please provide detailed dose calculations for each 

affected employee. 

3. New Comment: The document dated December 8, 2005, states that several employees had 

received intakes of transuranic radionuclides via inhalation, as supported by air sample results; 

however, data to support this statement has not been provided. 

Requested Action: Please provide air concentration values for all radionuclides which 

contributed to the exposures as determined by air sampling data within the MWTF. Please 

provide bioassay results and estimate the total exposure times for each employee. Please 

describe the personal protective equipment (PPE) utilized in the MWTF and provide the 

respiratory protection factors for each type of PPE. 

4. New Comment: The document dated December 8, 2005, states that there appeared to be 

atypical levels of uranium isotopes in several of the employees’ samples. 

Requested Action: Please explain what is meant by this statement and provide bioassay sample 

analysis results to support this statement. 

5. New Comment: Both documents seem to indicate that contamination may have spread 

outside of controlled areas due to degradation of the ventilation system. Also, Dean Kunihiro, 

senior vice president of WCS licensing and regulatory affairs, was quoted in The International 

Radioactive Exchange (Volume 24 No. 26) as saying that “doors to the facility (were) being 

propped open.” 

Requested Action: Please provide a discussion of the degradation of the ventilation system and 

its cause(s). Please provide surveys showing the location(s) and levels of any contamination 

released to the environment from the MWTF. State the period of time during which 

contamination may have been released from the MWTF. Please include any pertinent data from 

the environmental monitoring program. Please provide details of any effluent monitoring 

systems for the MWTF, including their operation and controls. If appropriate, provide a 

discussion of proper operation of these systems to prevent release of radionuclides to the 

environment. Please explain why the doors to the facility were being propped open and state 

whether this resulted in contamination spreading outside of controlled areas. 

Attachment 10 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 4

6. New Comment: Neither document describes releases to the facility septic system which 

were documented during an inspection by the Texas Department of State Health Services 

(TDSHS). 

Requested Action: Please provide a discussion of any releases of radionuclides to the facility 

septic system. The discussion should include a copy of the TDSHS inspection report. The 

discussion should also include any action taken by WCS to mitigate contamination in the septic 

system. 

7. New Comment: The document dated November 16, 2005, states that employee exposures 

were discovered through bioassay results as early as June 2005; however, operations in the 

MWTF were not suspended until September 21, 2005. 

Requested Action: Please explain the time interval between discovery of the exposures and 

suspension of operations in the MWTF to determine the root cause of the exposures. 

8. New Comment: The document dated November 16, 2005, states that an independent 

oversight group was chartered to insure that the investigation team is following the proper course 

to resolution. 

Requested Action: Please provide a discussion describing the members and activities of the 

independent oversight group. The discussion should include a description of the group’s 

technical qualifications to conduct an independent assessment of WCS’s operational health 

physics program. 

Section10.3 

Provide a description of minimum training and experience requirements of personnel 

filling on-site management and key operations positions. 

1. Comment: For most of the positions listed in Volume 1A, Section 10.3 such as General 

Manager, Director of Operations, Radiation Safety Officer, Manager Radwaste Disposal etc., the 

Applicant appears to substitute “equivalent” positions for degrees in engineering and scientific 

fields. 

Requested Action: Please provide information previously requested. Please explain what 

this equivalency will be and how it will be determined. 

Section 10.4 

Provide a description of the Applicant's personnel training program. 


Attachment 10 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 4


Describe the plan to maintain an adequate complement of trained personnel to carry out 

waste receipt, handling, and disposal operations in a safe manner. Those plans should 

include provisions for operating the facility in the event of unavailability of any contracted 

services or equipment. 

1. Comment: Volume 11A, Appendix 10.5, page 10.5-4 states “In the event that WCS would 

not have adequate qualified workforce or equipment to operate the LLRW disposal facility, 

WCS has immediate access to a trained and qualified management and operating staff from the 

other operations in the WCS complex. This staff could remain available until qualified 

personnel can be recruited for the LLRW disposal facility.” 

Requested Action: Please provide information regarding the qualifications of management 

and operating staff from other operations in the “WCS complex” to manage and operate 

either the FWF or CWF. 

Attachment 10 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 4

Attachment 11 



Environmental Report and Alternative Management Techniques 

Section 11.2 Description of Site Selection Process 

Describe the site selection process, including considerations of the interrelationships 

between location of waste generators, transportation costs and means, site characteristics, 

and compatibility with current land uses. [30 TAC §336.708(a)(6)] 


2. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.2, page 8, Transportation/Site 

Access offers no data on transportation volume to the site. 

Requested Action: Please provide data pertaining to projected volume of truck and rail traffic, 

including a discussion of related socioeconomic effects. 

3. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.2, p. 10 offers no information on 

the potential impact of the proposed site operations on area ranchers. 

Requested Action: Please discuss the potential socioeconomic effects of proposed site 

operations on area ranchers. 

Section 11.3 Alternatives to Proposed Project 

Discuss project alternatives, including a discussion of the alternatives considered by the 

Applicant for processing and disposal of waste [30 TAC §336.708(a)(7)] 

Provide evidence relating to the reasonableness of any technique for managing low-level 

radioactive waste to be practiced at the proposed disposal facility or facilities including: 

11.3.2 studies of the use of aboveground isolation facilities. [THSC §401.219] & [30 TAC 

§336.805(3)] 

1. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.3.2, p. 11-14, Alternative Design 

makes reference to the site having “extreme depth to groundwater” without any qualifier or 

supporting information. 

Requested Action: In light of recent and ongoing site investigations undertaken to provide 

additional characterization of the site’s hydrogeology, please reevaluate this claim and revise the 

Attachment 11 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 9

text accordingly. 

2. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.3.2, p. 11-14, second paragraph 

includes a discussion on the RCRA liner, but no discussion on potential “bathtubbing” following 

closure. 

Requested Action: Please provide a discussion on the potential for bathtubbing following 

closure. 

3. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.3.2, Options for Receiving, 

Classifying, and Processing Waste includes a brief discussion of operational simplicity related to 

random placing of high A and B/C waste. 

Requested Action: Please provide a more detailed discussion on operational simplicity and its 

value related to random placing of high A and B/C waste. 

4. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.3.2, On-site Transport indicates 

that on-site transport is preferable to over-the-road and facility unloading. 

Requested Action: Please provide evidence to support this, and provide a discussion on offloading 

and transfer at the site. 

5. New Comment: Volume 1A, Section 11.3, page 11-15 states that “additional safeguards 

against intrusion into the waste include WCS ownership of mineral rights;” however, WCS has 

not demonstrated ownership of mineral rights beneath the proposed land disposal facilities. 

Requested Action: Please modify this statement to accurately reflect the current status of 

WCS’s ownership of mineral rights, or provide sufficient justification for inclusion of this 

statement. 

11.4 Characteristics of Proposed Site 

Describe area and site characteristics including ecology, geology (including geotechnical 

features), seismology, geochemistry, soils, topography, hydrology, air quality, natural 

radiation background, meteorology, climatology, historical and cultural landmarks, 

archaeology, demography, and current land uses. The Applicant’s report shall address the 

following topics: [30 TAC §336.708(a)(3)] 

1. Comment: The application in Volume 12, Appendix 11.1.1, page 19 (Now Volume 11, 

Appendix 11.1.1, pp. 11.1.1- 22 through 11.1.1-24) considers recharge potential only in terms 

of recharge to the Triassic. 

Requested Action: Please respond to the following issues under Section 11.4.5, Geology and 

Attachment 11 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 9

Hydrology, Hydorgeology: 

• The Applicant’s response refers to current conditions. Please discuss potential for 

an expanded saturated zone (OAG and other) under somewhat different climatic 

conditions as must be anticipated over the 10,000 year life of the facility. 

• Section 2.5.9 in Appendix 11.1.1 refers to upward hydraulic gradients in the 

unsaturated materials near the ground surface. Does this also refer to the OAG? 

Please provide data to support this statement. 

• The Applicant’s response states that in recent years Baker Spring has been mostly 

dry. Given historic photos showing ponds at Baker Spring and the established 

aquatic plants, please reevaluate this statement and provide data to support it. 

• Please evaluate recharge to the OAG at the site, or in the near vicinity of the site, 

and the potential for discharge (as reported by Lehman at Baker Spring, Volume 4, 

Appendix 6.2-1). 


3. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.4.1, Adjacent Land and Waters, 

page 17 states that there are perennial waters about 2.5 miles east of the site. 

Requested Action: Please reevaluate this claim, taking into consideration, for example, Baker 

Spring. Please provide data on periods of time that Baker Spring contains water. 

4. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.4.5, Geology and Hydrogeology, 

page 11-22 states that the OAG is a single hydrostratigraphic unit. 

Requested Action: Please describe the potential groundwater pathway for the OAG as a single 

hydrostratigraphic unit. 

5. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.4.5, Topographic Features, page 

11-22 describes Baker Spring as normally dry. 

Requested Action: In view of other discussion on Baker Spring in Section 2, please provide 

data to support that Baker Spring is normally dry. 

6. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.4.5, Faulting, Folding, and 

Tectonic Processes, p. 11-23 states that there are small reverse faults observed in the RCRA 

Attachment 11 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 9

landfill. 

Requested Action: Please address the 30 ft displacement mentioned. 

7. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.4.5, Faulting, Folding, and 

Tectonic Processes, 11.4.5, page 11-23 states that there is no subsidence. 

Requested Action: Please verify if it is accurate to state that there is no subsidence, given the 

existence of numerous playas. 

8. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.4.5, Erosion and Mass Wasting, 

page 11-24 indicates that the playas are erosion or mass wasting features. 

Requested Action: Please provide evidence to support the claim that the playas are erosion or 

mass wasting features. 


page 11-24 states that it will take 160,000 years for erosion from Monument Draw, NM to reach 

the site. 

Requested Action: Please provide data to support this claim. Please also discuss the potential 

impact of this erosion on the site, especially as related to the Performance Assessment. 


page 11-24 describes a lineament going through Baker Spring and the site, describes it as an 

erosional feature, and states that Baker Spring may be part of the lineament. 

Requested Action: Please discuss this in more detail and address the potential for groundwater 

intrusion into the facilities. 

11. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.4.5, Geotechnical Features 

discusses minimal erosion potential. 

Requested Action: Please include in this section a discussion of erosion potential and intrusion 

of water to the waste, especially in relation to parallel erosion from the flanks of Monument 

Draw. 

12. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.4.5, Hydrogeology, pages 11- 

25 and 11-26 provides a discussion on groundwater movement. 

Requested Action: Please reevaluate this text section in light of comments given in Section 2 

and revise the text accordingly. 

Attachment 11 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 9

13. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.4.5, Hydrogeology, seems to 

downplay the significance of groundwater occurrence. 

Requested Action: Based on recent additional drilling at the site, groundwater occurrence may 

be more widespread than indicated. Please review the text and make revisions as necessary. 

14. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.4.5, Geochemistry concludes 

that hydraulic communication between the OAG and the 225-foot sandstone is lacking. 

Requested Action: Do the different geochemistry identifiers support the conclusion about a 

lack of communication between the OAG and the 225-foot sandstone? Please discuss in more 

detail, and provide appropriate reference material. 

15. New Comment: Summary statements regarding the social and economic costs and benefits 

of the proposed LLRW disposal facility can be found in Appendix 11.1.1. Section 6.4.3 

discusses probability statistics for on-site traffic accidents. Section 7.1.3 discusses 

socioeconomic issues related to “Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.” This section references the 

Socioeconomic Impact Statement (Attachment A of Appendix 11.1.1), but does not provide an 

overview of the unavoidable adverse impacts that relate to socioeconomics. Section 7.4 provides 

a summary of the costs and benefits of the project, and Table 7.4.1.1 provides a table that 

summarizes the socioeconomic benefits of the proposed facility. Although costs and benefits 

can be discussed at many different levels (to the local community, to WCS, to the State of Texas, 

etc.), the “benefits” discussed are limited to impacts on the local community and the “costs” 

discussed are mostly limited to financial costs to WCS. The section on “costs” does not discuss 

any specific costs, but only provides references to other portions of the application that deal with 

“costs” to WCS and the local community. There is no table that summarizes the socioeconomic 

“costs” of the proposed facility. 

Requested Action: Please expand discussions of socioeconomics in both Section 11.4.7 of the 

License Application and Appendix 11.1.1 in a way that provides a brief summary of relevant 

issues, not a reference to other portions of the Application. Expand the summary statements of 

expected costs and benefits in a way that covers socioeconomic costs and benefits at all levels 

(local, regional, state, corporate). Include a table that summarizes the socioeconomic “costs” of 

the proposed facility, or add “costs” to the existing “benefits” table. 

11.5 Design of Proposed Facility 

Provide a flow diagram of waste processing and disposal operations, a description and 

accurate drawings of processing equipment, and any special handling techniques to be 

employed. [30 TAC §336.708(a)(5)] 

1. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.5.1, Wastes to be Accepted, 

pages 11-29 and 30 states that the Applicant will be able to accommodate all of Texas and 

Attachment 11 


1/30/2006 Page 5 of 9

Vermont generators’ wastes within the 35-year operating life. 

Requested Action: Please review other parts of the application, and provide data to support 

this, or revise this discussion. 

2. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.5.1, Prior Disposal, page 11-30 

does not provide data on the impact of exempt waste already buried on site on the source term 

and the performance assessment. 

Requested Action: Please provide data on the impact of exempt waste already buried on site 

on the source term and the performance assessment. Discuss records of accumulation, results, 

and conclusions. 

3. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.5.1, Facility Description, pages 

11-30 and 11-31 includes a description that only refers to other sections in the application. 

Requested Action: Please provide a summary discussion on each subsection. 

11.6 Environmental Effects of Proposed Facility 

Provide a description of the pathways analyzed in demonstrating protection of the general 

population from releases of radioactivity which shall include air, soil, groundwater, surface 

water, plant uptake, and exhumation by animals. The analyses shall clearly identify and 

differentiate between the roles performed by the natural disposal site characteristics and 

design features in isolating and segregating the wastes. The analyses shall clearly 

demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that the exposures to humans from the 

release of radioactivity will not exceed the limits set forth in 30 TAC §336.724 (relating to 

Protection of the General Population from Releases of Radioactivity). The Applicant’s 

report shall address the following topics: [30 TAC §336.709(1)] 


Short-Term Environmental Effects 

1. New Comment: Volume 1A, Section 11.6.1, page 11-32 states “The proposed Site is 

currently permitted for RCRA waste disposal.” 

Requested Action: Please clarify this statement to more accurately reflect that an adjacent 

facility on the existing site is currently permitted for RCRA disposal. 

2. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.6.1, Facility Operation Effects, 

page 11-33, fourth paragraph includes the Applicant’s proposal to cover any exposed waste at 

the end of each workday. 

Attachment 11 


1/30/2006 Page 6 of 9

Requested Action: Please provide a procedural discussion on how this will be done. 

3. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.6.1, Facility Closure, page 11-34 

states that the institutional control period will last 20 years. 

Requested Action: Please modify to 100 years or justify the number “20.” 

4. New Comment: The application in Volume 1A, Section 11.6.2, page 11-35, 2nd paragraph 

states that leachate could impact groundwater. 

Requested Action: If the leachate is from the RCRA cells, will the stated impact be by 

“bathtubbing” resulting in impact to the OAG? Please discuss in detail. 

11.7 Environmental Effects of Accidents 

Discuss environmental effects of postulated operational and transportation accidents. [30 

TAC §336.708(a)(9)] 

1. New Comment: Regarding the application in Volume 1A, Section 11.7, Worst Case, page 

11-37: What is effect of 822 person-rem and 14,200 person-rem dose as compared to the 0.12 

mrem and 22.4 mrem discussed further on in the paragraph? 

Requested Action: Please discuss this data, and provide related results and conclusions. 

11.8 Summary Evaluation of Proposed Project 

The information in this section should summarize the important adverse environmental 

impacts and the overall benefit-cost analysis for the proposed project. It is understood that 

not all benefits and adverse impacts can be stated in monetary terms but this should not be 

taken as reason to automatically quantify the impact as trivial. An attempt should be made 

to state the benefit or adverse impact in the terms that best describe it. The following 

impacts discussions should be provided: 

1. New Comment: Regarding Section 11.8.1, page 11-40, Socioeconomics. 

Requested Action: It seems that a short discussion on public education and awareness may be 

appropriate in the event that mitigation of risk perception is appropriate. 

2. New Comment: Regarding Section 11.8.3, page 1-41. Relation between short and long-term 

productivity: The Applicant refers to the Performance Assessment, and states that there will be 

no expected environmental impacts . . . and that land-use covenants will protect from inadvertent 

intrusion. 

Attachment 11 


1/30/2006 Page 7 of 9

Requested Action: Please discuss the proposed land use covenants in more detail. 

3. New Comment: Regarding Section 11.8.4, pages 11-41 and 11-42, Benefit-Cost Analysis: 

The Applicant has provided brief summaries. 

Requested Action: Please expand with additional data, results and conclusions to provide a 

more definitive analysis reflective of the Socioeconomic Report found as Attachment A of 

Appendix 11.1.1. 

11.9 Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 

Provide a description of baseline, operational, and long-term environmental monitoring 

programs, including radioactive and chemical characteristics, and the plan for taking 

corrective measures if migration of radionuclides or chemical constituents is indicated. [30 

TAC §336.708(a)(10)] 

1. New Comment: Regarding Section 11.9.1, page 11-45, Hydrology and Water Quality: a 

discussion on surface water flow patterns is missing. 

Requested Action: Please provide this information. 

2. New Comment: Regarding Section 11.9.1, page 11-45A, fifth paragraph: the Applicant is 

stating what they will not do. 

Requested Action: Please review and discuss what the Applicant is planning to do to ensure 

monitoring is effective, including steps taken and “triggering” results that will require additional 

actions. 

3. New Comment: Regarding Section 11.9.1, page 11-45B, Radiological Baselines: there is no 

discussion on the impact related to the gross alpha levels exceeding the TCEQ 15 pCi/L limit. 

Requested Action: Please provide a discussion on this. 


Provide a list of all permits, licenses, approvals, and other entitlements required by 

Federal, State, local, and regional authorities that must be obtained for protection of the 

environment, and discuss the status and history of compliance with these requirements. 

The discussion of alternatives in the report should include a discussion of whether the 

alternatives will comply with such applicable environmental quality standards and 

requirements. 

1. New Comment: Volume 1A, Section 11.10, page 11-50 states “Existing operations and 

monitoring programs described in this Application are in compliance with existing permits and 

Attachment 11 


1/30/2006 Page 8 of 9

licenses.” 

Requested Action: Please ensure that the application accurately describes the Applicant’s 

current compliance status. 

Attachment 11 


1/30/2006 Page 9 of 9

Attachment 12 



Financial Qualifications and Financial Assurance 


The financial information in the application shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the 

financial qualifications of the Applicant are adequate to carry out the activities for which 

the license is sought. [THSC §401.108], [30 TAC §§336.735, and 305.50(a)(4)(D)(i-vii)]. 



(1) Providing financial assurance for disposal site closure and stabilization including 

decontamination and dismantlement of land disposal facility structures, disposal of 

any radioactive material remaining at the site at closure, and closure and 

stabilization of the disposal site so that, following transfer of the disposal site to the 

custodial agency, the need for ongoing active maintenance is eliminated to the extent 

practicable and only minor custodial care, surveillance, and monitoring are 

required. [30 TAC §336.736(a)] 



3. New Comment: The Applicant has expressed its intent to satisfy the requirements of 

financial assurance with an irrevocable standby letter of credit, most likely through Valhi, Inc., 

on behalf of WCS. 

Requested Action: Please explain the structure of the financing arrangement (i.e., would Valhi 

acquire financing from a third-party creditor on behalf of WCS, would Valhi simply act as 

WCS’s creditor, etc.?). In the response, please explain how the acceptance of such an obligation 

by Valhi impacts its current capital structure. Specifically, do Valhi’s current creditors allow it 

to provide such a guarantee to a subsidiary? 

4. New Comment: The Applicant was asked “What is the Premium (i.e., cost) of the [financial 

assurance] policy and what is the timing and amount of premium payments?” The Applicant’s 

response was that it “expects the cost of the irrevocable standby letter of credit to be between 

1.5% and 2% of the amount of the letter of credit.” Furthermore, the Applicant states that such a 

letter “would most likely be placed by Valhi, Inc.” on its behalf. 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 1 of 12

Requested Action: What is the basis for the assumption of 1.5% to 2% cost of obtaining such a 

standby letter of credit? What would the cost be if WCS obtained its own irrevocable standby 

letter of credit? 

5. New Comment The Applicant proposes to use a standby letter of credit “placed by Valhi, 

Inc. on behalf of WCS” (page 3 of 14, Non-Confidential Attachment to TNOD, Sept. 16, 2005). 

As previously mentioned, the cost of maintaining such a letter of credit is expected, as stated by 

the Applicant, to be between 1.5% and 2.0%. 

Requested Action: Please explain the rationale for having Valhi place the letter of credit on 

behalf of WCS, rather than WCS directly obtaining such a guarantee itself. 

6. New Comment: The Applicant proposes to use a standby letter of credit “placed by Valhi, 

Inc. on behalf of WCS” (page 3 of 14, Confidential Attachment to TNOD, Sept. 16, 2005). 

According to the calculations presented by the Applicant, the sum of costs related to closure, 

post-closure, institutional control, and corrective action are approximately $41 million. Since 

the Pro Forma statements are presented in real terms, it is important that the amount promised in 

the letter of credit be sufficient to cover the real costs associated with providing financial 

assurance. As it is currently presented, the letter of credit would be placed for approximately 

$41 million nominal, which, with a positive inflation rate, would be insufficient to cover the 

costs associated with providing financial assurance. 

Requested Action: Please explain how the standby letter of credit would be adjusted over time 

to account for general price level increases (i.e., providing a financial assurance mechanism that 

is inflation-protected). 



on behalf of WCS. 

Requested Action: What would the seniority of such an obligation be (i.e., would it be senior to 

existing bank debt, etc.)? 



on behalf of WCS. Part of the Applicant’s rationale for foregoing traditional insurance products 

is “upward price pressure” in the insurance markets (page 3 of 14, Non-Confidential Attachment 

to TNOD, September 16, 2005). Insurance rates typically reflect the underlying risks facing the 

underwriter. 

Requested Action: What is the basis for the Applicant’s view that it (WCS) or its parent (Valhi) 

is better able to assess or hold the risks associated with the potential claims related to the 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 2 of 12

financial assurance than an insurance company that specializes in quantifying such risks? 


(2) Bodily injury and property damage to third parties caused by sudden and nonsudden 

accidental occurrences arising from operations of the compact waste 

disposal facility and/or federal facility waste disposal facility in a manner that meets 

the requirements of 30 TAC §37.9059 (relating to Financial Assurance 

Requirements for Liability); 

1. Comment: The Applicant states that it will expand the limits of its existing insurance 

policy for its RCRA facility to $4 million per occurrence and $16 million Aggregate in 

order to meet the additional requirements for the CWF and FWF. Section 12.1.4 in Volume 

1A states, “WCS insurance includes $20 million each occurrence excess umbrella liability 

insurance as well as other policies for auto, workers compensation, general liability and 

equipment.” This proposal does not appear to meet the requirements of 30 TAC §336.736(e) 

and §37.9059(g) which require this insurance to be “distinct from any other liability 

requirements under this chapter.” 

Requested Action: Please address the following: 

1) whether a separate Certificate of Insurance per 30 TAC §37.631 or 30 TAC §37.641 for 

each facility (RCRA and LLRW) will be provided specifying that the coverage is for that 

specific facility; 

2) how the Applicant intends to assure separate and distinct coverages for the RCRA and 

LLRW requirements (e.g., sublimits within a single insurance policy) as is required by 30 

TAC §37.9059(g); and 

3) whether the existing insurance policy has exclusions for damages caused by radioactive 

related events. 


(3) post-closure observation and maintenance based on the cost estimate submitted in 

Section 7.1 (for facilities accepting mixed waste, or non-mixed waste, as 

appropriate). 

1. Comment: There appears to be an incorrect use of the discounted cash flow equation and 

errors in some components of the post-closure cost estimate. 

Requested Action: The Agency cannot accept post-closure estimates with discounted 

dollars because unforeseen circumstances might require the Agency to trigger post-closure 

activities before the end of the anticipated operating life of proposed facility. Such an event 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 3 of 12

would require that the full actual dollar amount be available to implement post-closure 

activities. The possibility that the facility’s operating life could be shortened precludes 

reliance upon the time value of money to meet full funding requirements for post-closure. 

In the irrevocable standby letter of credit the Applicant should use the total amount of 

post-closure in actual (2004) dollars, not in discounted dollars. Please revise post-closure 

estimates using actual dollars. 

Note: Cost estimates as expressed in 2004 dollars to support financial assurance 

mechanisms will be reviewed and updated to the year when the mechanism is put in place 

(60 days prior to the first receipt of waste). Amounts will be subsequently reviewed 

periodically by the Agency to account for inflation and changes to the post-closure plan. 

2. Comment: On page 7-11, Section 7, Volume 1A of the application, the Applicant states that 

the total present value for post-closure costs is $2.1 million, as of January 1, 2004. In the 

Applicant’s response to ANOD3, dated May 16, 2005, Revision 7, page 10, the Applicant 

explains the discounting calculations used to calculate the $2.1 million present value. The 

requirement for post-closure funding is that the Applicant must provide the total amount of 

required funding sixty days prior to the initial receipt of waste. January 1, 2004 is not a date that 

is sixty days prior to the initial receipt of waste. 










3. Comment: On page 7-11, Section 7, Volume 1A, the Applicant states that the total present 

value for post-closure costs is $2.1 million, as of January 1, 2004. In the Applicant’s response to 

ANOD3, dated May 16, 2005, Revision 7, page 10, the Applicant explains the discounting 

calculations used to calculate the $2.1 million present value. The discounting process explained 

by the Applicant involves taking the present value of expenditure amounts between 41 and 70 

years into the future. However, it is possible that closure and post-closure will occur prior to the 

projected time, i.e., prior to 41 years into the future. 





Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 4 of 12







(4) Institutional control using the perpetual care account, and based on the cost 

estimate submitted in Section 7.2.3 of this application [30 TAC §336.737(b)] 

1. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendix 7.2.2, page 7.2.2-5 the Applicant states “the present 

value of costs expected to be incurred during the institutional control period is less than 

$200,000 and the associated Institutional Control Fund is mentioned under the control of 

TCEQ.” 

Requested Action: The Agency cannot accept institutional control estimates with 

discounted dollars for two reasons. The first is that unforeseen circumstances might 

require the Agency to trigger institutional control activities before the end of the 

anticipated operating life and post-closure interval of the proposed facility. Such an event 

would require that the full actual dollar amount be available to implement institutional 

control activities. The possibility that the facility’s operating life could be shortened 

precludes reliance upon the time value of money to meet full funding requirements for 

institutional control. Secondly, institutional control monies are to be used to fund the 

Perpetual Care Account. The TCEQ lacks the authority to spend earned interest in that 

account. Therefore the TCEQ cannot expect any rate of return on deposits made to that 

account. This, too, makes reliance upon accrued interest impracticable. In the irrevocable 

standby letter of credit the Applicant should use the total institutional control estimate in 

actual (2004) dollars, not in discounted dollars. 




periodically by the Agency to account for inflation and changes to the institutional control 

plan. 

2. Comment: In Volume 9, Appendix 7.2.2, page 7.2.2-5 the Applicant states “the present value 

of costs expected to be incurred during the institutional control period is less than $200,000 and 

the associated Institutional Control Fund is mentioned under the control of TCEQ.” However, it 

is possible that closure and the subsequent perpetual care period will occur prior to the projected 

time, i.e., prior to the year 2042. 

Requested Action: The Agency cannot accept institutional control estimates with 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 5 of 12

discounted dollars for two reasons. The first is that unforeseen circumstances might 

require the Agency to trigger institutional control activities before the end of the 

anticipated operating life and post-closure interval of the proposed facility. Such an event 

would require that the full actual dollar amount be available to implement institutional 

control activities. The possibility that the facility’s operating life could be shortened 

precludes reliance upon the time value of money to meet full funding requirements for 

institutional control. Secondly, institutional control monies are to be used to fund the 

Perpetual Care Account. The TCEQ lacks the authority to spend earned interest in that 

account. Therefore the TCEQ cannot expect any rate of return on deposits made to that 

account. This, too, makes reliance upon accrued interest impracticable. In the irrevocable 

standby letter of credit the Applicant should use the total institutional control estimate in 

actual (2004) dollars, not in discounted dollars. 

Costs 

1. Overall Comment: Answered in TNOD1 reponse. 

Post-Closure Costs 


(3) post-closure observation and maintenance based on the cost estimate submitted in 

Section 7.1 (for facilities accepting mixed waste, or non-mixed waste, as 

appropriate). 

New Overall Comment: The proposed post-closure cost estimate provided by the Applicant is 

not robust for reasons specified below and, therefore, not acceptable to the TCEQ. The estimates 

fall significantly short in dollar amount and could potentially increase public exposure to 

financial liability. 

Requested Action: Please see Attachment 7, Section 7.1.1, Comment 4 regarding development 

of a satisfactory post-closure plan and revise associated cost estimates accordingly. 



3. Comment: The following statement is made on Page 9 of the letter (May 16, 2005) in the 

response to question 3 pertaining to costs associated with leachate pumping and treatment: 

“Although we assume that RCRA Post-Closure will require the facility to be monitored for 30 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 6 of 12

years following the closure period, we have made the reasonable and realistic assumption that no 

leachate will be developed in the disposal units, consistent with the underlying assumption that 

the closed facility is performing as expected. Thus, the deduction of no costs associated with 

leachate pumping and treating is appropriate.” 

The assumption made above is in contradiction with Appendix 3.0-3.13, Volume 8A in which 

the Applicant estimates infiltration rates through the covers of 0.01258 in/yr for the FWF and 

0.01229 in/yr for the CWF corresponding to volumes of 2,693.7 and 535.3 cubic feet per year for 

each facility, respectively. These rates and corresponding volumes could be higher based on 

comments in Section 3.6. In addition, in the Post-Closure Cost Estimate of the license 

application for the existing RCRA facility (Attachment VII.C-1, page 4) the Applicant provides 

an infiltration rate of 0.88 gal/sf/yr, with a corresponding cost estimate of $10,724/year. In 

Volume 1A, Section 7, page 7-3 the Applicant states “active maintenance may involve 

significant remedial activity during the period of institutional control to maintain a reasonable 

assurance that the performance objectives stated in 30 TAC §336.724 will continue to be met. 

Active maintenance also includes ongoing activities such as the pumping and treatment of water 

from a disposal unit or one-time measures such as replacement of a disposal cover.” 

Requested Action: The TCEQ questions the assertion that no leachate will be produced. 

Please provide a realistic leachate rate and corresponding cost estimate pertaining to the 

activities involved in pumping, handling and treating the leachate water originating from this 

infiltration. Provide estimates for the CWF and FWF facilities (for both the period of 

operations and during post-closure) and revise all relevant sections of the application. (Also 

see Attachment 5, Section 5.4.1, Comments 12 and 13). 

4. Comment: The agency continues to believe that the progressively lower estimates for land 

surveys during the four phases of post-closure are inappropriate, because those estimates 

unreasonably envision progressively less intense and less frequent surveys, sampling and related 

activities. The Agency believes that less frequent surveillance activities in the later phases of 

the post-closure surveillance activities will diminish the quality of this surveillance work. 

Estimates that assume perfect facility performance unreasonably minimize the Applicant’s 

financial liability. 

Requested Action: For purposes of cost estimation, please assume the post-closure 

surveillance activities will not diminish over time. Please revise the post-closure estimates 

accordingly. 

5. Comment: The Applicant has not demonstrated the sufficiency of its post-closure plan, 

making it impossible to evaluate associated cost estimates. The plan does not quantify or 

adequately describe the anticipated activities of staff, including health physicists, and 

security personnel during this period. It does not describe maintenance work, sampling 

and monitoring efforts, geotechnical stability evaluations, surface water and erosion 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 7 of 12

protection, and other necessary engineering studies. Also, the plan fails to include the cost 

of salaries, vehicles and other equipment required by the TCEQ inspectors assigned to 

post-closure activities during this period. In developing the cost estimates, please consider 

the guidance found in NUREG-1199 Section 5 and NUREG-1200 SRP 5. Also see comments 

in Attachment 7. 

Requested Action: Please modify the cost estimate for post-closure to reflect the comment. 

6. Comment: On page 12-6, Section 12, Volume 1A, The Applicant, in referring to how 

post-closure costs were developed, states “WCS accounted for the variation in post-closure 

costs by estimating the fractions of each post-closure cost component that are fixed and 

variable (with respect to amount of waste disposal, or equivalently years of operation). 

Using a modified Delphi evaluation methodology with participation of knowledgeable and 

informed technical professionals, WCS estimated the fractions.” 

Requested Action: Please explain what a modified Delphi evaluation is. Also please 

identify the consultants cited. Additionally, demonstrate these calculations and how they 

fit into this cost estimate. 

7. Comment: The Agency cannot accept post-closure estimates with discounted dollars 

because unforeseen circumstances might require the Agency to trigger post-closure 



activities. The possibility that the facility’s operating life could be shortened, precludes 



post-closure in actual (2004) dollars, not in discounted dollars. 



(60 days prior to the first receipt of waste.) Amounts will be subsequently reviewed 

periodically by the Agency to account for inflation and changes to the post-closure plan. 

Requested Action: Please revise estimates in light of the above comments in order to 

establish adequate financial assurance for post-closure. 

Institutional Control Costs 


(4) Institutional control using the perpetual care account, and based on the cost 

estimate submitted in Section 7.2.3 of this application [30 TAC §336.737(b)]. 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 8 of 12

New Overall Comment: The proposed institutional control cost estimate provided by the 

Applicant is not complete for reasons specified below and is therefore not acceptable to the 

TCEQ. The estimate falls significantly short in dollar amount and could potentially increase 

public exposure to financial liability. 

Requested Action: Please refer to Attachment 7, Section 7.2.1, Comment 1 regarding 

development of a satisfactory institutional control plan, and revise associated cost estimates 

accordingly. 


2. Comment: The agency continues to believe that the progressively lower estimates for land 

surveys during the two phases of institutional control are inappropriate, because those estimates 

unreasonably envision progressively less intense and less frequent surveys, sampling and related 

activities. The Agency believes that fewer surveillance activities in the later phase of the 

institutional control could diminish the quality of this work. Estimates that assume 

perfect facility performance unreasonably minimize the Applicant’s financial liability. 

Requested Action: For purposes of cost estimation, please assume the institutional control 

surveillance activities will not diminish over time. Please revise this estimate accordingly. 

3. Comment: The Applicant has not demonstrated the sufficiency of its institutional 

control plan, making it impossible to evaluate associated cost estimates. The plan does not 

quantify or adequately describe the anticipated activities of staff, including health 

physicists, and security personnel during this period. It does not describe maintenance 

work, sampling and monitoring efforts, geotechnical stability evaluations, surface water 

and erosion protection, and other necessary engineering studies. Also, the plan fails to 

include the cost of salaries, vehicles and other equipment required by the TCEQ inspectors 

assigned to post-closure activities during this period. In developing the cost estimates, 

please consider the guidance found in NUREG-1199 Section 5 and NUREG-1200 SRP 5. 

Also see comments in Attachment 7. 

Requested Action: Please modify the cost estimate for institutional control to reflect the 

comment. 

4. Comment: The Agency cannot accept institutional control estimates with discounted 

dollars for two reasons. The first is that unforeseen circumstances might require the 

Agency to trigger institutional control activities before the end of the anticipated operating 

life and post-closure interval of the proposed facility. Such an event would require that the 

full actual dollar amount be available to implement institutional control activities. The 

possibility that the facility’s operating life could be shortened, precludes reliance upon the 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 9 of 12

time value of money to meet full funding requirements for institutional control. Secondly, 

institutional control monies are to be used to fund the Perpetual Care Account. The TCEQ 

lacks the authority to spend earned interest in that account. Therefore the TCEQ cannot 

expect any rate of return on deposits made to that account. This, too, makes reliance upon 

accrued interest impracticable. In the irrevocable standby letter of credit the Applicant 

should use the total institutional control estimate in actual (2004) dollars, not in discounted 

dollars. 




periodically by the Agency to account for inflation and changes to the institutional control 

plan. 

Requested Action: Please revise estimates in light of the above comments in order to 

establish adequate financial assurance for institutional control. 

Corrective Action Costs 


(5) corrective action to address unplanned events that pose a risk to public health and 

safety that may occur after the de<strong>commission</strong>ing and closure of the compact waste 

disposal facility or federal facility waste disposal facility, based on cost estimates 

submitted in Section 7.3.3 of this application. 

New Overall Comment: The proposed corrective action cost estimate provided by the 

Applicant is not comprehensive for reasons specified below, and therefore is not acceptable to 

the TCEQ. The estimate falls significantly short in dollar amount and could dramatically 

increase public exposure to financial liability in the event of serious failure of the proposed 

facility. 

Requested Action: Please develop a satisfactory corrective action plan that envisions a 

reasonable worst-case catastrophic failure of the LLRW trench(es). Refer to Comment 2 below; 

Attachment 7, Section 7.3.1, Comment 1; and Section 7.3.2, Comment 7 in development of such 

a plan and revise associated cost estimates accordingly. 


2. Comment: The proposal contained TNOD1 does not envision a reasonable worst-case 

scenario that could trigger corrective action. The amount of financial assurance for corrective 

action may not be less than $20 million. This requirement is provided in 30 TAC §336.738(b), 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 10 of 12

which states that “The amount shall not be less than $20 million at the time the disposal facility 

site is de<strong>commission</strong>ed. The <strong>commission</strong> at open meetings shall review annually the amount for 

corrective action.” 

Requested Action: Please submit a detailed corrective action estimate that is based on a 

reasonable worst-case scenario, consisting of a major failure in the emplacement 

trench(es). Please identify every activity involved in this scenario and use valid unit costs 

and quantities for each activity, including, but not limited to the following concepts: 

• The proposed FWF trench is one hole to be developed in 12 different phases, which 

would make it difficult to locate and remove leaking canister(s) or bulk waste cell(s). 

Failure of the red bed and other liner components and the presence of leachate in 

the trench could result in the migration of radionuclides. Corrective action would 

then include significant cover removal, significant waste removal until the leaking 

canister(s) or cell(s) were located, and significant liner removal. 

• Costs associated with significant groundwater and soil remediation. 

• Costs associated with re-disposal of wastes at an appropriately-licensed, out-of-state 

facility due to a catastrophic failure that renders the proposed facility unusable. 

This scenario calls for disposal unit costs from other LLRW disposal sites, 

estimated quantities of the LLRW to be transferred to other sites, and 

transportation costs. 

• Costs associated with the development of another disposal facility by the custodial 

agency, in case no alternate facility is available. This scenario requires cost 

estimates for developing another LLRW disposal facility at another site. 

• Costs associated with temporary containment and storage of the waste while 

another facility was being located or developed. 

• TCEQ inspector salaries, vehicles and other related costs. 

3. Comment: The Agency cannot accept corrective action estimates with discounted 

dollars because unforeseen circumstances might require the Agency to trigger corrective 

action activities before the end of the anticipated operating life of proposed facility. Such 

an event would require that the full actual dollar amount be available to implement 

corrective action activities. The possibility that the facility’s operating life could be 

shortened, precludes reliance upon the time value of money to meet full funding 

requirements for post-closure. 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 11 of 12



(60 days prior to the first receipt of waste.) Amounts will be subsequently reviewed 

periodically by the Agency to account for inflation and changes to the corrective plan. 

Requested Action: In the irrevocable standby letter of credit, please use the total amount 

of corrective action in actual (2004) dollars, not in discounted dollars. Cost estimates used 

to support any corrective action assurance financial mechanism must envision a worst-case 

scenario (see Comment 2 above). 

Attachment 12 


1/30/2006 Page 12 of 12

texas commission on environmental quality - TCEQ e-Services

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?