ML20198R414

Requests Comments on Encl Proposed Rev to LLW Disposal Program Section of Final Texas Impep Rept by 971113

ML20198R414
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/05/1997
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Ratliff R, Rogers A TEXAS, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 9711130270
Download: ML20198R414 (11)

Text

. ..

.{W {ij.J Ql

=- --

xm WW

,pf x;f k[jH id 5 )JAli$

UICa H Uranium itton WD 51997 a, Rogers, P.E., Section M: nager nd Radioactive Wast) Section

[l%g ,

,yjiQ s 9 'r g% e 34 (pt g +Mexas _i Commissioni-?

5 (p o, g6x 130374 .

Natural Resource Conservation : ' 7< &j[/(2 <

,s y - ot >.

w,, r a f Austin., Tf 787113087 qw+;

%k{ -- i = 4 "

s

- e_ .q p g .,a

.jh 1 Q Rishard Af Ratliff, P.E., Chief .

' /

1. i'a if Bureau of Radiation Control Q '* (Texhs Department of Health ,t~ <y f

i/

^ _ "1100jNest 49th Street '

Austin, TX 78756-3189 #

w _-Q _ , 't

, Q p.- ,

Dear Mi Rogers and Mr. Ratliff:

x, [/;-i m .,

I have enclosed for your review the proposed revision to the Low-Level Radioactive -

- Waste Disposal Program section of the final Texas IMPEP report prepared by the review team

- as directed by the Management Review Board (MRB). The proposed revision is a redline / strikeout version of Section 4.3 of the Proposed Final Report. I would appreclete your :

irevies and comments on this proposed revision by November 13l 1997. If you have any 4 questions, please contact me at 301-415-3340 or Richard Woodruff at 404-562-4704J -

Sincerely, e

L 8n Richard L Bangart, Director a Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

w As' stated Distribution: .

a DIR RF' RLWoodruff, Ril .DCD (SP08) '

HLThompson, DEDR? MBurgess, NMSS - PDR (YES/) )

- RLBangart, OSP L  : EDrinnon, GA  ; '

c iCJPaperiello, NMSS : CGordon, RI .

1. KDCyr, OGC:_ ?JHMyers, OSP --

].

% ;TMartin,'AEOD TO'Brien, OSP - pWo pg " *g

• pgyg

- (g]P{

/1

LRakoven, OSP MThaggard, NMSS , / \

1. ; SDroggitis Vi CHackney, RIV- '"

^l 7Tcxas

.w FileL 9 .n p ,. .

s l '

fk, '

%::i?"1 J T " G p, : -

' k;f'#

~i

• See previous concurrence ,-

v DOCUMENT NAME:L G:\KXS\TE '"

me J*

A r6 *.. we mm.XASLTR.KNS w c cow wmou.a.cnm.nu.nce r der wm.n.cnm.nu.nceu. v wo cow  :- - s

{' OFFICE, A O S P ., v l- OSP:DD l OSP:D/f1 ,l n :"a NAME% KSchneider:gd : PLohaus RBangart ' * *  ! e DATE 9711130270 971105

= 11/ 05/97* 11/05/97* 11l$/97  % I{

PDR STPRO E80TX OSP CF CODE: SP-AG-27' <._

PDR ,1 f )

. 4 s

$e

"-r .A _>

, : Alice Hamilton Rogers, PE, Section M; nager. U q

> ' UIC, Uranium and Radioactive Wasta Section Texas Natural Resource Conservation .

I ommission' - # l' "

/ P. . Box 13087 -

1. t Aus ' ,TX 78711-3087 $

w ,

sf Riclidt A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief  %

~' ' 3, s 48ur' eau f Hadation Control- - -

j Texas De artment of Heath - M q

-=

i '

~ #:?/fAustin,,TX 1100 West 756 9th3189-Street Iw 6 I- '

,"r n% y f ,

a. .. # #,

V

=

4 - . . . .

4,.' h

Dear Pds.' Rog s and Mr. Ratliff:

r:1 bT,A -

. * ;f

1 3,"q ,1 .

%,,7 ' t , ' I have en osed for your review and concurrence the proposed revision to ths Low-Level =

3 e v sj t m.

p b,c LRadioactive Waste 'sposal Program section of the final Texas IMPEP report prepared by - -

the review team as dire ed by the Management Review Board (MRB). The proposed revision

,4 4 t 3

fi. s, .

is a redline / strikeout versio of Section 4.3 of the Proposed Final Report..J would appreciate -

t #

your review and comments on his proposed revision by November 13,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 1-415-3340 or Richard Woodruff at 404-562-4704.

< ;l l

ichard L. Bangart, Director 7 i ice of State Programs

Enclosure:

As etated Distribution:

, DIR RF RLWoodruff, Ril DCD (SP08)

CO HLThompson, DEDR MBurgess, NMSS PDR (VES/)

. RLBangart, OSP EDrinnon,' GA

.CJPaperiello, NHSS . CGordoti, RI ,

s KDCyr, OGC 'JHMyers, OSP TMartin, AEOD : , TO'Brien, OSP LRakovan,' OSPf MThaggard, NMSS

la SDroggitis s CHackney, RIV 4 Texas File s

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\TEXASLT

, T

• recolwe a cop i of thle document. Indicate in the bos: 'C" =g.{

r a"achmenvenclosure a Ccpr wrth attachtnunt/

'Ea wure "N" = No cocy

( '

OFFICE OSP g'M OSf$(fg l OSP.D o

\ l NAME KSchneider:gb ~ PLohaus, RBangart \

DATE- -11/ 6 /97 11 D /97 11/ /97

,...'~. -

, , O P CF. CODS: SP-AG-[h *  !

, p h,  ?

, = .i

_ u

,_  : .l g'- a*og% UNIVE] STATES l E NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY CUMMISSIEN g-I-;- , - WASHINGTON, D.C. 30046 0001

%+ , , , , , 7 ' i .-j . November 5, 1997 Alice Hamilton Rogers, P.E., Section Manager UIC, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Section Texas Natural Resource Conservation

. Commission P.O. Box 13007 Austin, TX 78711 3087 Richard A. Ratilff, P.E., Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street

' Austin, TX 78756-3189 Dear Ms. Rogers and Mr. Ratliff; i

I have enclosed for your review the proposed revision to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Di?.posal Program section of the final Texas IMPEP report prepared by the review team as directed by the Management Review Board (MRB). The proposed revision is a redline / strikeout version of Section 4.3 of the Proposed Final Report. I would appreciate your review and comments on this proposed revision by November 13,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-3340 or Richard Woodruff at 404 562-4704.

. i Sincerely, lt1)0tf y '4L M Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated I

)

Texas Final Report Page 25 -

4.2.2 Technical Staffino and Tealnina BRC reported that a two-person team with combined staff efforts equaling approximately 0.6 FTE is dedicated to performing safety evaluations. The balance of staff time is spent primarily in licensing actions. Both staff members responsible for performing safety avaluations are trained in health physics principles, and have engineering backgrounds.

Both staff members have attended at least one SS&D workshop. BRC has begun training additional staff in tM4 area, although at the time of this IMPEP review, no registration certificates have been signed by these additional individuals.

BRC tsported that 16 registration certificates were issued er modified during the review period. The qctions reported by BRC also included one action associated with Naturally Occurring or Accelerator Produced Radioactive Materials (NARM). The review team noted that the !nitial review was performed by the same individual for all but one of the 16 registrations certificates completed during the review period. Since BRC has indicated that

- this primary initial reviewer plans to retire in the near future, the review team suggests that the State consider assigning safety evaluations to those staff members currently being trained to perform safety evaluations to enable them to gain enough experience and obtain registration certificate signature approval before the staff member currently performing the initial review retires.

4.2.3 Evaluation of Defects and incidents Reaardina SS&Ds The details regarding the review of incidents associated with SS&D product f ailures or problems is addressed in Section 3.5 of this report. The State adequately addressed the immediate issues involved relating to product failures or problems, but the review team .

suggests that the State take a more aggressive approach to forwarding information to the agency responsible for the product evaluation and registration certificate where there is a possibility that the failure or problem may be a generic issue.

Based on the IMPEP cvaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Texas' performance with respect to the indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, be found satisfactory.

4.3' Low-Leve' Radioactive Waste Disposal Proaram

- The review team evaluated the State's responses to the questionnaire, compared Texas low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) statutes and regulations with those of the NRC, evaluated the qualifications of the technical staff and contractors, reviewed the State's written procedures and plans, examined parts of the LLRW disposal facility license application and interrogatories, reviewed parts of the environmental and safety analysis report, evaluated field reports and files, and interviewed staff, managers, and contractors assigned to the LLRW program, in 1981, the Texas Legislature created TLLRWDA for the purpose of siting, developing, and operating a LLRW disposal facility. TDH was granted responsibility for licensing the facility, in March 1992, authority to regulate disposal of radioactive substances was transferred from TDH to the Texas Water Commission, in September 1993, authority was r

(.-

~

! ,- Texas Final Report Page 26 shifted to TNRCC. Within TNRCC, the LLRW program is administered by the Underground injection Control (UlC), Uranium, Radioactive Waste (UURW) Section within the Industrial

& Hazardous Waste Division. -

TNRCC received an application to license a LLRW disposal facility from the TLLRWDA on

' March 2,-_1992. The initial application contained very little specific information on the proposed Sierra _Blanca site; therefore, the application was declared incomplete. After nine submittels (called revisions by TLLRWDA), the application was declared administratively ,

complete on May 12,1995. After being declared complete, TNRCC was under statutory requirements to complete their review of the application within 15 months; however,- bened EfamilWhit[the;epp%ejloplesultin0lfroritWoompletenesfievleWsZthe TNRCC committed to completirig the review by April.1,1996, 't: !:, :t::d of the-44 eddeenet m:rn ::;i;m:nt!. After the application was declared administratively complete, additional revisions were made based on interrogatories and meetings with TNRCC staff.

The final revision (i.e., no. 20) is dated March 3,1996. TNRCC completed its review of

'the application on March 29,1996, and a distCWoposedJlicense has been developed.

Currently, the licensing matter is in an adjudicative hearing with the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). At the conclusion of the hearing, the SOAH will prepare .

a recommendation to the TNRCC Commissioners, who will then make the final decision on whether to issue the licenso.

During the last program review of Texas, as noted in Section 4.1.1, NRC raised a concern with the compatibility between the State and NRC statutes and regulations on the definition of LLRW. The review team found that this issue has not been resolved.

4.3.1 Status of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disoonal Inanection Under this part of the program indicator, the review team'avsluated the State's ability and ,

progress in doing periodic inspections of the LLRW disposal facility. ;TNRCC is planning to complete periodic inspections from the pre operational phase through the post-closure

_ phase, to ensure that activities 'are being conducted in compliance with regulatory

. requirements and consistent _with good safety practices.

The Texas LLRW disposal facility is in a pre-licensing phase; therefore, this program Indicator is not applicable. However, the team notes that_TNRCC has completed 14 pre--

licensing site visits. Pre-operational (baseline) data have been collected on a quarterly basis for two years. Site visits have been made for the purpose of site familiarization, and collecting environmental samples and background radiation data for independent

. verification of data submitted in the application. TNRCC staff indicated that there will be regular inspections of the site during construction; however, the frequenc6s of the inspections have not been determined.

=The team notes that baseline thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) data have been compared against data collected by TLLRWDA. Some discrepancies have been found s~nd D6cuikentid; 5:v;;v::, 2::: !: n d:: m:rt::!:r en $: n::::: :f $: d!::::Pency :nd E 5:W::;:=y :::: ::r!v:d. 'h: ::v!:ve ::= 5:Sv:: :S!: d::um r :t!:r t;;;!d r;;: t "CC !!::n:!n; d::!:!:n: dufne 2: 5::?ng ;:::=:. The review team else

i

.1 s -o

- Texas Final Report Page 27-notes that'none of the baseline data have been put into a computer database. = However,

? the data have been captured in a spread sheet by a member of the staff. The review team suggests thatMhasantedibithe;amoyriofJets 2: ::=;:::i: ::: ! : Mween T""CC :nd TLL"".'D^. 5:::Mn; d:::, Mit; 2:::;:n6:, 6: d::::: ::1 5:05;:, the

baseline data should be entered into a computer database to facilitate its review and use.

4.3.2 Technical Staffino and Trainina The team notes that there are currently five technical staff members supporting the LLRW program. All technical staff have bachelors' degrees or above. The team also notes that the following disciplines are covered within the program: health physics, civil engineering, chemical engineering,' geology, and biology. Surface water _ hydrology is currently not covered; however, temporary support can be obtained from other sections within the -

Division (although the details on this have not been worked out). -The hydrologist who

- worked on the license review is still with the TNRCC and is expected to provide support during the license hearing.

During the license review, additional staff supported the LLRW prograrn, including contractual support from the TDH and the University of Texas.- This contractual support is still being provided. In total, approximately 12 technical persons were involved with the license review, with the following disciplines being covered: geology, hydrology, health physics, biology, geotechnical engineering, chemical engineering, civil engineering, and mechanical engineering.

The level of staffing was sufficient to allow review of the soplication within the mandatory 15 months. The review was completed by the target date (i.e., April 1,1990); that is, several months ahead of the mandatory requirement. FaihouldLbe"dsisd{thafths: Stat's had -

[MW@]e'vloped jarloU(isiirtioss[offtheWidatioidivisillamhdS92dNieam ~

was informed that TNRCC staff h:d t: work;sd extra hours to meet the target date.

TNRCC staff is allowed to pursue training as they see the need and as funds are avaliable.

. The availability of training has been identified as a program weakness by TNRCC. TNRCC-would like more support from the NRC in the form of free or inexpeasive technical training because of limited available funds. In the LLRW area, TNRCC is especially interested in the availability of training in performance assessment. TNRCC maintains no complete compilation of training completed by staff. TNRCC Technical Training Acade.ny maintain

,information on allin-house training of TNRCC staff. Through review of staff resumes,

- @hicNy@iEM6sdWs@6dWisisMainl65]esei@dl[the team notes that staff has undertaken additional on-site training, outside training, and participated in workshops. The review team suggests that a consolidated training record be developed to enable assessment of training across the entire program.

The team found no apparcnt trends in the loss of staff that could adversely affect the

_ program.

4.3.3 Technical Quality of Licensina Actions The purpose of the review under this part of the program indicator is to enewe6snfM that

e

-e le Texas Final Report Page 28 the State has an acceptable program for licensing the LLRW disposal facility. To evaluate

--the technical rpality of the licensing program, the team reviewed technical aspects of the licensing action, in particular the performance assessment. The team evaluated parts of

the Environmental and Safety Analysis report, parts of the license application,

- interrogatories, file records, and staff files, in addition, the team interviewed staff involved with the license review.

The team notes that the license review utilized licens!.1g guides ~such as " Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Fact!ity," NUREG 1200 and " Environmental Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," NUREG 1300.

TNRCC has developed a safety analysis report; h;;; :::.-the report 5 dif'!:r!! ::

WidlexteneMiffortgtheMtoloondgthejevie@ because of the need to - -

- refer to the application (i.e., the document is not self contained). Further, the basiss for-staff findings (i.e., acceptance of the licensee's analysis) kiii not provided throughout the document. 'Af thi"piesepilise7thiTNRCC~ staff'liQiisperingfadditio6alldocumentatlodif6i Mprehearing$tistimonyjo be submitted;thatvillfprovide; bases for{ staff;findingsdThe review team suggests that DIRCCicompletsltheir; efforts,to" establish;th(dosumented]the basies for all staff findings 5: th::: ;;h!y d:: =:r :d 5 05: :::r: :::t' m =i::: ::: n:

?;c;::cre!?:i!:.

- TNRCC sent out 31 different sets of interrogatories during the license review period.

TNRCC staff also had numerous meetings with TLLRWDA staff; issues and resolutions discussed at these meetings are documented in the file records.

Assessment of the quality of the license review primarily concentrated on the psy himponentsTofjTNRCC's review of the TLLRWDA'4 performance assessment.~ hioiittimp!

pas modeltelesildatelt6sjirf6n6ipoolisseisthiptMeelfMThe performance assessment, which analyzes the long-term, post-closure doses from the site, is epi 44,elessehtlal to the licensing decision. Thiltear6'siisles[# irid"66W963nt P 6s;TNRCC!sifisieEIof)heTilRWO4 pairformanci'issessmenf are'netilntended asM6ieWofiTLLRWDki ausssamern ofthif soceptabilhyMthe proposedhenTheref6tennothing%hisVaipdrieho61dibiconstMki]ai

'a criticiamTor evaluation}of 4hcense apphcatisrMthelperf6rmance sessaan j enMif ~

acceptability of the sitedTNRCC reviewed the performance essessment by deine 2^^ iMtingMfknistdiy, calculations to test out individual models in the analysis.

TNRCC also evaluated models and parameters used in the analysis against the literature.

TNRCC concludes that TLLRWDA performance assessment analysis is conservative because it is largely dependent upon water infiltrating into the disposal cells; however, the site characterization data show little or no recharge at the site. Since the TLLRWDA analysis d:::)M5MQj considers the possibility of water getting into the facility, the

. performance assessment analysis n::f: t:R.5Uldl be evaluated '::: th: ::rt::: $:: :S!:!:

:::d!i!: ::::::!:Wa: technically rig 6rsueleopl6ich (i.e., the performance assessment

- analysis needs to bejoviaWe(thens {uraithst;appr6priefi]pifameisr}jil6siysisys thailanalysis :::nd :n 4: :r; , m::S). The team found that in several keyimportant areas, which could significantly affect the eelowlete44eeesisibits, TNRCC could conduct

- additional ed!::! analyses ' 2: 1:!l: ;'n;; ::::: to ensure that the performance assessment luss(sppidpiriaWinp6tyaI6isjii6dgs6surelthi{ihs[iediitisit 36fdiitaldike9

\ ..

Texas Final Report . Pa9e 29 hpiQalue6fRWi="}t:nd n 't:')wwwim 1.- - TLLRWDA analyzed infiltration into the facility by running a modifiedLv'ersion of the HELP computer code. TNRCC staff reviewed the inputriend made confirmatory runs, rd 5:d th: m:d$::th ; :: 05: ::d: :::r'n:d b; th: ::d: d;;i;::.

Sensitivity analyses performed by TLLRWDA show that a long term everage increase in rainfall by 50% leads to a threefold increase in percolation; however, such a long term increase is deemed to be unlikely because it would represent a change in climate.- No consideration wautiven to the sensitivity of the calculated infiltration to evapotranspiration. ! b ::rm:2l Sn:= t% 5vapotranspiration -

significantly effects recharge in arid areas, in reaching a proposed licensinC' decision, TNRCC relied solely upon TLLRWDA's sensitivity analysis which only addressed variation in precipitation. Although the needed increase in precipitation -

may be unrealistic, it is possible that a small change in evapotranspiration, svhich could be credible, could have the same effect on calculated infiltration!isjelpfe!

Mounts.

2. In the source term analysis, TLLRWDA calculates releases of radionuclides from the facility as a first order process that is a function of percolation and partitioning between tne waste and the percolating water. The release model used is commonly -

cited in the literature. TLLRWDA uses a factor (f t) to relate releases from a surface wash-off type process to a diffusion process. TLLRWDA relates the tf factor to the contact tima factor (t ) in IMPACTS, Because of known concems with the derivation and basis of the contact time factor in .lMPACTS, TLLRWDA used a

~

. different approach to derive values for the tf factor, The DUST computer code, cwhich was developed under agreement with Brookhaven National Laboratory for the -

NRC, was used to caiculate tf values by calculating radionuclide fluxes out of the-disposal facil!cy based on a diffusion process and back calculating a tf value to get an equivalent flux from using a surface v. ash-off model. Estimated ft values derived

- for use in the analysis are:

• Tc 99 and 1-129 0.05 Cl36 0.01 All other radionuclides 0.1 In discursions with TNRCC staff, the team learned that these values were considered acceptable because they were several orders of magnitude. larger than the te factors in IMPACTS. However,;TNRCC did not review the input used in the -

DUST code or make any confirmatory runs; 'Iri fact, TNRCC did not have a copy of the input for the DUST code used by TLLRWDA. The team questioned TNRCC staff.

about the basis for the assumed concrete diffusion coefficient of 1x104 cm 8/s; 16f6H65ti6n. Given that the value for the f factor e86ewessi ,*ssult'~lr[t a 1-2 o t

= inagnitude"ceddot i onssristio# in calcu'ated doses, %:::PE(g~ 533!n; d::h!:n

" C C :hru!d 5:::Oltear$bstieses'tlistThs~techhidalIsselpslifdssidTtis s'tiii%thenedjbp checiieding'i6e~aipropriaieness oflhiderived" values ihiough either independent confirmatory analyses or review of the INerature.

a

j IT exas Final Report l Page 30

,_____a__ _ i _ _ _1_ _

m_i '-Td furthei strengthenftheil technical, analysis, TNRCC staff should i: 5::: :::::r;;dMQ'n the literature cited by TLLRWDA in selecting distribution coefficients (K.) for the waste area (source area). TNRCC staff reviewed distribution coefficients assumed for the soils, by comparing them against velues in the literature. However, K/s assumed for the waste area (K,") are several orders of magnitude larger than for the soils for several key radionuclides-(i.e., C-14,1129, and Tc-99). Based on the approach used by TLLRWDA, K/s for the soil

'should have little effect on the calculated dose. However, the K, for the weste (K,*) can greatly ::fr::EMM the calculated dose. For example, the calculated ground water concentration for C 14 (Class A waste) based on a K value used by-TLLRWDA in an earlier submittal when compared with the K, value for their last -

submittal, results in a two order of magnitude reduction.

~ 3. In the environmental transport analysis, TLLRWDA calculated concentrations of radionuclides at receptor points along the water pathway by'using a series of

transfer functions that account for decay and dilution. TNRCC staff indicated that they had reviewed these equations and m'ade spot calculations to determine that -

they.were appropriate and appropriately being used. Further, TNRCC staff indicated they had reviewed the parameter values used in the models against published information.

To avoid double accounting for potential impacts, TLLRWDA arbitrarily assumed that 75% of leachate leaving the' facility would be available to return to the surface (i.e., f4 = 0.75) and the remaining 25% would be available to travel to the -

ground water (i.e., f, = 0.25). TNRCC staff questioned the basis for these factors, but accepted the use of them because they agreed that a grnund water pathway analysis must be done, and recognized that any factors assumed for that 4

. analysis represent site conditions that do not exist and therefore must to some extent be arbitrarily defined. O .: ::n :::!'y ::: th:: th:yJhessl faci 6is have minimal effect on the calculated doses. For example, inocesowner[arbitrar9 bonservatiselnorsese;hi the f value from 0.25 to 1.0, increases the calculated r O.29 :: 1.1S r::rly:::, bGt]still _well below

-thedose bylan_

dose limit. However, order wheng [ofimagrdtud,ej '::M :h::: c: ;;: ':d f actoro-ere combination with the f tfactor (discussed above), they li ellowe6'aiWesult'hi a significant ::d ::!:n@j. =M in the calculated dose. Es~er[arbitrarpjoonserVativi lilustration; S: :::=;!:, the f, factor jQE1] combined with the f factor (f t hRallow three orders of magnitude increase in the calculated ground water dose, from exposure to Cl-36 (ii~itated so69siiity', the calculated dose would bi asirisseidWthrosiders[ofimagnitude; ;;: '::: 0.20 ::

• 1S r:::ly::: withewt the use of less"conservativeNalues :t::: : :: ':::::d. TNRCCysiiisssnisti9ei (hthehestimatps3Although TNRCC staff correctly maintains that the f and f factors by themselves do not greatly affect the calculated doses, sensitivity analysis 'm;:::: Of using these factors in combination with other factors or i= parameters should be considered.

TLLRWDA,in determining the dilution volume for contaminants returning to the surface, assumed a volume equal to the depth of the disposal unit (10.5 m for Class

.I

- ,?

.- Texas Final Report Page 31

}

A and 7.75 'm for Class B/C) multiplied by the total sdtface area of the facility (i.e.,

the area of Class A and Class B/C combined); however, releases from Class A~are assumed to be initiated at .100 years While releases for Class B/C are assumed to -

be initiated at 300 years. The surface area of the Class B/C units la only 1/4 that of the Class A units; therefore, use of the combined surface area is likely accounting for additional dilution of leachate released from the Class B/C units.FThousf6is,!

TNRCC staff,ishould undertal(e6alyseeTo; evaluate [tNelappWIipriat6nessief,the.

s' pproach used_in determinin 5! sm rY TU "f.t.^f5h;;3::E,'eithe~ h d 3dilution,

= :' M .~volume

6 h h

x;n!xd th:2:;::=:!:

::F;;r,th:: ree!d?::

"h:'y bu:!T:!: Of1::: M rf:r!:::d I r z.

4. - TLLRWDA design of the interior of the disposal units calls for the placement of gravel between the waste canisters to provide stability for the cover. ".: =:ythe

r

d ;!

r==: Of :s layer of soil pip 6Uls; tie ~gidioed;over the gravel and waste canister, rr!d !rd t: mi: : Of =y ;;;: ht: th: ?r!!iy! ti; ch rnid werd 05: ;;nt:, = :;;r:d :: : :y '=m th; ==t:. The contrast in hydraulic oroperties between the gravel and soll has the potential of creating a capillary barrier, which would block water from moving down into the gravel brid Eissi Water:tsbe channeled;tonbrd"the~iWiite7end'needs tibifurthsfsnderstood'.' The

~

s

' otsrdial'foi p ibis'occu5ing should[oen be M hivioM bp modeling

- moisture movement within the facility. .

The review team recommends that TNRCC staff examine these aspects of the license >

review tihelF# ovid 6"s^jsorip~robustit6hHnisa[o9aluetl66[6fyifMyjMasseiM

'portiorijfjtheilicense" application. The review team also recommends that TNRCC ensure that = :;;;;.!:::hndocumentidj technical basiss exist for the performance assessmenti fu!!y dx =:rt:d =d i; d:f=fb ::d;. :nd dr ==::ir Of th ;;t: .==

esseesm=: 5:: txr m:6. Sensitivity analyses should be completed to ensure that key

- aspects of the performance assessment analysis have been reviewed. Antheeln]eddltlef sinca TNRCC is relying lrMon limited (or no) percolation into the facility as part of the basis for the licensing decision, TNRCC should review its evaluation and confirmatory assessment of TLLRWDA's site characterization work, to :cr: th:: prtheEisengthb6 appropriate; technical defeneebler basis emiete-for th: !!:=&; dx!ic.Mharthths~

analysisf

-4.3.4 Technical Quality of insoections i The intent of the review under this part of the program indicator is to evaluate the Stata in terms of the quality of its inspection of the LLRW facility. Because the LLRW facility is in a

- pre-licensing phase, this part of the program indicator is not applicable. However, the team notes that the TNRCC has completed 14 pre-licensing site visits. The site visits are thoroughly _ documented in terms of areas visited and features observed.-

4.3.5 Resoonse to Incidents and Alleaations Under this part of the program indicator, the State is evaluated in terms of its response to incidents, alleged incidents, and other allegations of safety concerns. The team notes that there have been no reported incidents, alleged incidents, or allegations of safety concerns

%+g

- I

Texas Final Report ' Page 32 :

with regards to the LLRW facility.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria for the above five performance areas, the review team recommends that Texas performance with r9spect to the indicator, Low Level

> 4 Radioactive Weste Disposal Program, be found satisfactory with recommendations for .

'irnprovement.

4.4. Uranium Recoverv Raoulatorv Proaram

. In the process of evaluating this performance lodicator, the review team evalested the Sttte's responses to the questionnaire; reviewed information provided by the State

- regstding the status of licenses, status of the various sites, site inspection history, financial- ,

assurances, status of regulations; reviewed selected licensing and inspection files; evaluated the qualifications 'of the technical staff; and interviewed oelected staff and -

inanagers working in the uranium recovery regulatory area.

Jurisdiction over uranium recovery activities was transferred from the TDH to TNRCC in September 1993, prior to the previous review. Since September 1993, TNRCC has been cresponsible for regulating the uranium recovery program which includes underground injection control, and decommissioning of uranium sites. During the 1997 legislative session of the Texas legislature, the regulatory responsibility for the uranium program was transferred (returned) to the TDH. The underground injection control program is an

' EPA-delegated program that will be retained by TNRCC. This transfer became effective on July 21,1997. . During the review, managers of TNRCC and TDH were in the process of working out the details of the transfer.

- At the time of the review, Texas had 3 conventional mill licensees (3 sites) and 9 in-situ

licenses (19 sites). All of _the conventional milllicensed sites and all but 3 of the in situ

-licensed sites are in various phases of closure. The active production facilities (in-situ)~are -

Uranium Resourcea incorporated (URI) sites identified as Kingsville Dome, and Rosits. The Vasquez facility has not yet been licensed.

, n

_4.4.1 -Status of Uranium Recoverv Proaram insoection

' The TNRCC program initially set the inspection priorities for mill sites at one year

. frequencies to be consistent with the inspection frequencies called for in IMC 2800 and 4 IMC 2801. However, due to other programmatic priorities such as the Low Level Waste

. Program, development of regulations, ard licensing backlogs, the program established additional priorities for the uranium site inspections which were based upon potential health and safety issues, and environmental considerations. Program managers related

. that in order to address health and safety issues while managing the inspection _ backlog, 1 emphasis is placed (in decreasing order) for response to incidents, the inspection of active operations and decommissioning activities, and finally to those sites that had been

.decommissioned but still requiring regulatory monitoring and observations. At the time of the review,12 sites were on a one year inspection frequency. For 10 sites, TNRCC has established a two year frequency, and documented the justification for the frequency change for these facilities which are in restoration / reclamation mode since their activities

' did not warrant the same level of attention as facilities with a greater potential to adversely