January 9, 2003 

Richard Ratliff, Chief 

Bureau of Radiation Control 

Texas Department of Health 

1100 West 49th Street 

Austin, Texas 78756-3189 

Ms. Susan Jablonski, Technical Advisor 

Office of Permitting, Remediation

 and Registration 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 13087, MC 122 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

Dear Mr. Ratliff and Ms. Jablonski: 

A periodic meeting with Texas was held on December 2, 2002. The purpose of this meeting 

was to review and discuss the status of Texas’s Agreement State program. The NRC was 

represented by Ken Brockman from NRC’s Region IV office, James Myers from the NRC’s 

Office of State and Tribal Programs, and me. 

I have completed and enclosed a corrected copy of the general meeting summary of the topics 

discussed at the meeting, including any specific actions that will be taken as a result of the 

meeting. The general meeting summary attached to the December 20, 2002, letter was an 

interim draft and contained errors. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. 

If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have 

any additional remarks about the meeting in general please contact me at (817) 860-8143 or 

e-mail VHC@NRC.GOV to discuss your concerns. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

Vivian H. Campbell 

Regional State Agreements Officer 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc w/enclosure 

Paul Lohaus, Director, OSTP 
bcc: 

SPO1 

K. Brockman 

L. McLean 

V. Campbell 

J. Myers, OSTP 

K. Schneider, OSTP 

L. Rakovan, OSTP 

B. Maier 

J. Whitten 

DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DNMS\SAO\Periodic Meetings\2003\TX DOH-TCEQ\letter.wpd 

To receive copy of document, indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy 

OFFICE RIV:RSAO D:DNMS 

NAME VHCampbell KEBrockman 

/RA/ /RA/ 

DATE 1/09/03 1/09/03 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR TEXAS 

DATE OF MEETING: December 2, 2002 

ATTENDEES: 

NRC 

Vivian Campbell, Regional State Agreements Officer 

Ken Brockman, Division Director, Division of Nuclear

 Material Safety, Region IV 

James Myers, Agreement State Project Officer,

 Office of State and Tribal Programs (by phone) 

Lance Rakovan, Office of State and Tribal Programs (by phone) 

State of Texas 

Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control (the Bureau): 

Richard Ratliff, Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control, 

Ruth McBurney, Director, Division of Licensing, Registration and Standards 

Arthur Tate, Director, Division of Compliance and Inspection 

Cindy Cardwell, Deputy Director, Regulations and Standards 

Bill Silva, Deputy Director, Radioactive Materials Inspection 

Robert Free, Deputy Director, Emergency Response & Incident Investigation 

Pete Myers, Deputy Director, Radioactive Materials Licensing 

Gary Smith, Deputy Director, Technical Assessments 

Ruben Cortez, Deputy Director, Environmental Monitoring 

Bob Green, Acting Deputy Director, Compliance, Radioactive Materials 

Brad Caskey, Manager, Incident Investigation 

Helen Watkins, Incident Investigation 

Bob Burkhart, Environmental Monitoring 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission): 

Susan Jablonski, Technical Advisor, Office of Permitting, Remediation and 

Registration 

George FitzGerald, Team Leader, Radioactive Material Licensing 

DISCUSSION: 

The following is a summary of the meeting held in Austin, Texas on December 2, 2002, 

between representatives of the NRC and the State of Texas. During the meeting, the topics 

suggested in a letter dated October 17, 2002, from Ms. Campbell to Mr. Ratliff and 

Ms. Jablonski were discussed. The discussion pertaining to each topic is summarized below. 

1. Action on Previous IMPEP Review Findings 

The previous Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review was 

conducted during the period August 27 - 31, 2001. The status of the recommendations outlined 

in Section 5.0 of the final IMPEP report was discussed. 
-2-

The status of the recommendations for Texas is summarized below. 

a.	 Recommendation: The review team recommends that the Department (Bureau) 

adhere to the policy of annual supervisory accompaniments of all qualified inspectors. 

Current Status: The Bureau indicated that all but three of the inspector 

accompaniments were completed, and the three outstanding accompaniments were 

overdue. Bureau management anticipates completing these accompaniments within the 

next 60 days, and plans to require monthly status reports of the annual accompaniments 

for the Director of the Division of Compliance. 

It is recommended that this item be reviewed at the next IMPEP review. 

b.	 Recommendation: The review team recommends that the Department (Bureau) report 

all significant and routine events as well as follow-up event information to the NRC in 

accordance with the STP Procedure SA-300, “Reporting Material Events.” 

Current Status: As part of the preparation for the periodic meeting, the NRC staff 

reviewed all the reportable events that were reported to NMED by the Bureau since the 

previous IMPEP review. The review identified that 20 of the 33 significant events 

reported by the Bureau were not reported in accordance with the STP Procedure 

SA-300, “Reporting Material Events.” This subject is discussed in further detail in Item 9 

of this document. 

It is recommended that this item be reviewed at the next IMPEP review. 

c.	 Recommendation: The review team recommends that the Department (Bureau) 

prepare necessary supporting documentation identifying the bases for the licensing 

actions associated with reclamation plans for the three conventional mills. 

Current Status: The Bureau is actively working on preparing this supporting 

documentation for the three conventional mills. Reclamation of one of the mill sites is 

expected to be completed by 2003 or 2004. The other two mills have significant ground 

water issues and the Bureau does not anticipate closure in the near future. 

It is recommended that this item be reviewed at the next IMPEP review. 

The status of the recommendation for NRC is summarized below. 

Recommendation: The review team recommends that NRC, in coordination with the 

Agreement States, re-evaluate the two-person rule to assess the effectiveness of the 

intended outcomes, including experience from past events, and propose a strategy and 

rule interpretation that best achieves the goal of safety. 

Current Status: NRC convened a working group composed of staff from NRC and 

Agreement States to re-evaluate the two-person rule. The team effort should be 

completed soon. The final product should be completed by January 2003. 
-3­


2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Program 

THE BUREAU: 

Program Strengths: The Bureau has well trained, experienced, and dedicated staff 

members who are often called on as resources by both federal and other state 

agencies. The licensing and inspection staff are highly skilled. The Bureau has 

excellent emergency response and investigation capabilities, and, at the current time, 

has adequate support from administrative staff and laboratory services. The Bureau 

also has well-trained staff specifically dedicated to rulemaking activities. The Bureau 

highlighted stakeholder involvement in regulatory activities as a program strength. The 

State has an active and experienced Radiation Advisory Board. 

Program Weaknesses: The most notable challenge facing the Bureau is the potential 

loss of a significant percentage of experienced technical and managerial staff to 

retirement. The Bureau has had nine staff members retire and, subsequently, return as 

full-time employees. This arrangement is a short term fix for the staffing issue. 

Management has considered cross-training as a mechanism to address the resource 

issue; however, the dilemma of the appearance of preselection has discouraged 

management from pursuing this approach. Bureau management recognizes the 

difficulty of recruiting replacement staff with equivalent training and experience. They 

have not been able to offer competitive salaries as compared to industry, other states, 

and the federal government. Furthermore, the incentives to retain employees are 

limited since the State does not give automatic cost of living pay increases and the 

funds for merit raises are limited. In addition, the legislature has imposed a full time 

equivalent (FTE) cap for each state agency. This legislation has limited the Bureau’s 

ability to hire full-time staff with increasing workloads. 

Texas Department of Health management has cut or redirected approximately 1 percent 

of the program’s funding over a two-year period. In the past, the Bureau has used 

vacant positions’ salary savings to fund the training program. With the budget cuts and 

the State mandated travel cap, the Bureau may not be able to provide training to new 

staff in a timely manner. 

Since 1998, the Department has undergone several legislatively-directed agency 

evaluations aimed at improving business operations. Based on the results of these 

evaluations, the Department formed a team to look at consolidation of financial, human 

resources, and information systems services. The Department is in the process of 

implementing a consolidation of administrative services by December 31, 2002. Bureau 

management expressed their concern that the initiative to consolidate the Department’s 

administrative staff may impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the Bureau’s 

day-to-day operations. The full impact of these changes remains unknown. 

THE COMMISSION: 

Program Strengths: The Commission currently has five experienced, well educated, 

and committed staff who have made progress on decommissioning the seven remaining 

buried radioactive waste disposal sites. One site was licensed for continued on-site 

disposal of depleted uranium catalyst, and one site was decommissioned with release 
-4­


for unrestricted use. Two sites are expected to be released for unrestricted use prior to 

the end of calendar year 2003, and the other three sites are on schedule for resolution 

within the next two to four years. 

In 2001, bills were introduced to the 77th State Legislative Session that addressed 

management of low-level radioactive waste through near surface disposal, aboveground disposal or assured isolation. No bill was passed during that Legislative 

Session; therefore, no additional action could be taken. However, the Commission is 

anticipating that revised low-level radioactive waste management bills will again be 

introduced early in the 78th Legislative Session which will meet the State of Texas 

Compact agreement with the States of Vermont and Maine. 

Program Weaknesses: If legislation passes and a major licensing action is received, 

the Commission will not be adequately staffed to complete a waste site review. Over 

the past 4-5 years, the Commission has lost $14 million in funding and half of its staff. 

The Commission anticipates the need for 10-12 staff, but remains in a hiring freeze 

since April 2002. With the hiring of new staff, training may become a major issue for the 

Commission as there will not be adequate funding for training since the training program 

is funded entirely through licensing fees. Specific training will be needed in the areas of 

decommissioning and LLW disposal. In addition, all out-of-state travel must be 

approved by the Executive Director’s office because of the State mandated travel cap 

presenting another problem with regard to training outside the State. 

3. State Feedback on NRC’s Program 

THE BUREAU: 

Bureau management requested that NRC reconsider communicating with the Governor 

on an annual basis to inform him of the status and value of the State’s radiation safety 

program. Bureau management acknowledged that NRC had been reluctant to provide 

such a brief in the past. Although Texas has been an Agreement State since March 1, 

1963, the State is concerned because the current Governor may not be fully aware of 

the importance of the agreement between NRC and the State. Considering the present 

importance of national security and the State’s existing budget and funding issues, 

Bureau management believes that such a brief could be helpful in maintaining adequate 

funding for the program. 

Bureau management also acknowledged their commitment to the national materials 

program and the value of participating in the NRC/Agreement State Working Groups. 

Because of today’s economic environment, it is extremely important that they 

understand the full extent of the resource commitment. The Bureau requested that the 

goal and resource commitment for a particular project be clearly outlined prior to 

requesting Agreement State participation. 

Finally, Bureau management requested that NRC consider restoring the training funding 

program, or provide other alternatives to allow the State’s participation in training 

courses with minimal cost or impact to the State. The Bureau suggested that the option 

for students to participate via Internet or video-conference would be extremely helpful. 
-5-


THE COMMISSION: 

The Commission agreed to fund 10 percent of the cost for decommissioning the Gulf 

Nuclear-Tavenor and the Gulf Nuclear-Webster sites. The Department’s original 

estimate of the cleanup cost was $3.4 million; however, the cost has risen to over $12 

million. The EPA has removed the greater than Class C waste from the Gulf Nuclear 

sites under emergency removal provisions and sent the waste to Waste Control 

Specialists located in Andrews, Texas. The Commission finds their role as providers of 

long term operations and maintenance of any waste not immediately disposed to be 

problematic. The Commission requested that NRC facilitate contact with the 

Department of Energy so that the State may discuss long term maintenance of this 

waste. 

The Commission does not have an applicant as a source of funding. Commission 

management also requested NRC support to provide regularly scheduled and free, or 

inexpensive, technical training.

 4. Recent or Pending State Program Changes 

THE BUREAU: 

There are no pending Bureau program changes with regard to legislative changes or 

distribution of responsibilities. As discussed earlier, the Department is implementing a 

consolidation of administrative services by December 31, 2002. Overall, the Bureau has 

experienced approximately 30 percent turnover since the IMPEP in August 2001. The 

radioactive material licensing program has been significantly impacted with a 50 percent 

staff turnover. Due to the State’s budget shortfall, the Bureau is now experiencing 

significant budget and funding issues. 

THE COMMISSION: 

Since the IMPEP, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission has been 

reestablished under the name of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. While 

the Radioactive Material Licensing organization has not been affected, senior level 

management within the Commission has changed. There have been no changes in the 

distribution of responsibilities. The Radioactive Material Licensing organization was able 

to post and replace a senior geologist staff position inspite of the mandated hiring 

freeze. There have been no legislative changes since the IMPEP; as discussed earlier, 

the Commission anticipates that a revised bill for a Low-level Radioactive Waste 

Management Facility will be proposed this coming Legislative Session. The 

Commission is experiencing the same pressure to conserve funds as the Bureau due to 

the budget shortfall in the State of Texas.

 5. NRC Program or Policy Changes That Could Impact Agreement States 

Mr. Brockman was introduced to the State staff as the new Director of the Division of 

Nuclear Materials Safety in Region IV. Mr. Myers informed the State that Ms. Rosetta 

Virgilio will be the new State Liaison Officer in the Office of State and Tribal Programs. 

Mr. Myers and Ms. Campbell discussed that NRC is working on a continuance for its 

budget and NRC’s funding is restricted to the previous approved levels. The NRC staff 
-6­

also discussed Homeland Security being one of the major issues that will face the 

States in the future. 

6. Internal Program Audits or Self Assessments 

THE BUREAU: 

The Bureau conducted a comprehensive audit of the Licensing, Compliance, and 

Inspection program. Bureau management assembled a working group to evaluate the 

program using a risk-based approach and to focus on streamlining operations. The 

group developed recommendations for improving service and surveyed staff to identify 

the recommendations that should be implemented. The Bureau is currently in the 

process of implementing these changes. The Bureau has an inspection backlog due to 

staff turnover. However, they expect to catch up once staffing is stable. 

THE COMMISSION: 

The Commission has not conducted a formal audit of their program since the IMPEP. 

However, the Radioactive Materials Licensing team regularly discusses the program 

with the Waste Permits Division Director to determine areas of improvement. A 

comprehensive internal audit of the Waste Permits Division is anticipated during 

calendar year 2003. 

7. Status of Allegations Referred by NRC to the State 

THE BUREAU: 

There were two allegations forwarded to the Bureau by Region IV during this review 

period, and they were appropriately resolved. 

THE COMMISSION: 

The NRC has not referred any allegations to the Commission during the review period. 

8. Compatibility of Texas Rules and Regulations 

THE BUREAU AND THE COMMISSION: 

The State has traditionally maintained a high standard of compatiblity in the area of 

rules and regulations. The ASPO agreed to assist the Bureau and the Commission to 

review the status of the regulations using the State Regulation Status data sheet as a 

basis for the review. 

9. Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) 

THE BUREAU: 

In preparation for the periodic meeting, the NRC staff reviewed all the reportable events 

submitted to NMED by Texas since their IMPEP review and provided a detailed 

evaluation of the survey to the Bureau prior to the periodic meeting. 

The staff’s review found that 20 of the 33 significant events reported by the Bureau were 

not reported in accordance with the STP Procedure SA-300, "Reporting Material 
-7-


Events." Although the Bureau had closed many events, the NRC staff also identified 

17 events with an incomplete record. The NRC staff discussed the importance of 

reporting significant events to NRC within 24 hours of notification and of ensuring that 

routine and follow up event information is provided to NMED on at least a monthly basis. 

The Bureau indicated that in some cases the NMED date data field did not accurately 

reflect the date the State received the event report and that their records showed only 

three incomplete event records. The Bureau modified their event notification procedure 

to address the identified timeliness issue and provided a copy of their procedure to the 

NRC staff. The Bureau also requested followup to identify the discrepancy in additional 

information needed to complete NMED event reports. The NRC staff agreed to bring 

this issue to the attention of NRC’s NMED project manager. 

The NRC staff observed, following discussions with the State, that there are differing 

expectations between NRC and the States on the issue of NMED reports and reporting 

processes. For example, once again the issue of “closed” verses “incomplete” came 

into discussion. This issue is one that needs more clarification and understanding if 

NMED is to be a fully functioning database. The issue of timeliness of reporting events 

to NRC has again been discussed with the State, and once again, the State has 

modified its procedures to facilitate prompt reporting of events to NMED in an effort to 

meet the standards in SA-300. 

Both of these issues, among others, have been previously identified during recent 

IMPEP reviews and it appears that more work at all levels is necessary to unify the 

expectations among all parties using NMED. 

THE COMMISSION: 

The Commission has not had an event item to report to NRC during this period. 

10. Schedule for next IMPEP Review 

The next IMPEP is scheduled for fiscal year 2005.