UNITED STATES

a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055-4a

January 26, 1998

Patti J. Patterson, M.D.

Commissioner

Texas Department of Health

1100 West 49th Street

Austin, Texas 78756

Dan Pearson, Executive Director

Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission

P.O. Box 13087

MC 109, Building F

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Dear Dr. Patterson and Mr. Pearson:

On September 22, 1997, the Management Review Board (MRB) met to consider the proposed

final Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) report on the Texas

Agreement State Program. The MRB found the Texas program adequate to protect public

health and safety and compatible with NRC's program.

The MRB did direct the team to revise the final IMPEP report to reflect that the team's review

was not intended as a review of the low-level waste disposal applicant's acceptability of the

proposed site. Due to significant revisions to Section 4.3, Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Program, a proposed final version of this section was issued to the State for factual

comment on November 5, 1997. The December 18, 1997 response has been included as an

attachment to the final report. The State's factual comments were considered by the team and

a number, but not all, of the changes suggested were adopted into the final report.

Section 5, page 34, of the enclosed final report presents the IMPEP team's suggestions and

recommendations. We request your evaluation and response to the recommendations within

30 days from receipt of this letter.

'Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, the next review will be scheduled in four

years, unless program concerns develop that require an earlier evaluation.
Patti J. Patterson - 2 -

Dan Pearson

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the IMPEP team during the review and

your support of the Texas Radiation Control Programs. I look forward to our agencies

continuing to work cooperatively in the future.

Sincerely,

Hugh. Thompson, ,,

Detu/y Executive Di~c6

for egulatory Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

cc: Richard Ratliff, Chief

Bureau of Radiation Control

Texas Department of Health

Minor Brooks Hibbs, Director

Industrial & Hazardous Waste Division

Texas National Resource Conservation Commission

John Howard, State Liaison Officer
INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REVIEW OF TEXAS AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM

JUNE 16 - 27, 1997

FINAL REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Texas Final Report Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the review of the Texas radiation control program. The review

was conducted during the period June 16-27, 1997 by a review team comprised of technical staff

members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Agreement State of Georgia. 

Team members are identified in Appendix A. The review was conducted in accordance with the

"Interim Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Pending

Final Commission Approval of the Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State

Program and the Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State

Programs," published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1995, and the September 12, 1995,

NRC Management Directive 5.6, "Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

(IMPEP)." Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period March 11, 1994 to June

27, 1997 were discussed with Texas management on June 27, 1997.

The Texas Agreement State program is administered from two State agencies, the Texas

Department of Health (TDH), and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

(TNRCC). Organization charts for both agencies are included as Appendix B. 

The TDH, Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC) regulates approximately 1,540 materials licenses,

and received regulatory authority for the 11e(2) uranium recovery program as of July 21, 1997. 

In addition to the radioactive materials program, TDH administers a laboratory program for

environmental sciences under the Bureau of Laboratories. 

The TNRCC regulates low-level radioactive waste burial sites, and the decommissioning of

former burial sites. TNRCC also regulated the uranium recovery program during the period of

September 1993 to the time of the review. Authority for the uranium recovery program

transferred to TDH on July 21, 1997. 

The review focused on the regulatory program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. (of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of Texas. 

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and non-common

indicators was sent to both agencies on April 18, 1997. Each agency provided a response to the

questionnaire on May 22, 1997. A copy of each response is included in Appendix C to this

report. 

The review team's general approach for conduct of this review consisted of: 

(1) examination of the responses to the questionnaire, (2) review of applicable Texas statutes

and regulations, (3) analysis of quantitative information from the TDH and TNRCC licensing and

inspection data bases, (4) technical review of selected licensing actions and inspections in each

agency, (5) field accompaniments of nine materials inspectors, (6) a site visit of an uranium

production facility, (7) the review of the low-level radioactive waste program, and (8) interviews

with staff and management in both agencies to answer questions or clarify issues. The team

evaluated the information that it gathered against the IMPEP performance criteria for each

common and non-common indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the State’s

performance. 

A draft of this report was issued to Texas for factual comment on July 25, 1997. The State of

Texas responded in letters dated August 26, 1997 and August 29, 1997 (Attachment 1). The

State's factual comments were considered by the team and accommodated in the report, except
Texas Final Report Page 2

for the requests to reconsider the findings for the two non-common indicators Sealed Source and

Device Evaluation Program and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program. The MRB met

on September 22, 1997 to consider the proposed final report. Based on the need to conduct two

independent reviews for each sealed source and device evaluation and the performance of the

State in an isolated case, the review team recommended that Texas' performance with respect

to the non-common performance indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, be

found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement. The MRB considered Texas

response to the isolated case and the scope of the technical quality audits performed by the

State and revised the team's recommendation to satisfactory for this indicator. For the LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, the MRB supported the review team's

recommendation that Texas' performance be found satisfactory with recommendations for

improvement. The MRB did direct the team to revise the final IMPEP report to reflect that the

team's review is not intended as a review of applicant's assessment or acceptability of the

proposed site. The MRB found the Texas radiation control program was adequate to protect

public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program.

Due to significant revisions to Section 4.3, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, a 

proposed final version of this section was issued to State for factual comment on November 5,

1997. The State of Texas responded in letters dated November 14, 1997 and December 18,

1997 (Attachment 2). TNRCC’s factual comments were considered by the team and a number,

but not all, of the changes suggested were adopted into the final report. 

Section 2 below discusses the State's actions in response to recommendations made following

the previous review. Results of the current review for the IMPEP common performance

indicators are presented in Section 3. Section 4 discusses results of the applicable non-common

indicators, and Section 5 summarizes the review team's findings, recommendations and

suggestions. Suggestions made by the review team are comments that the review team

believes could enhance the States program. The State is requested to consider suggestions, but

no response will be requested. Recommendations relate directly to program performance by the

State. A response will be requested from the State to all recommendations in the final report.

2.0 STATUS OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS

The previous routine review concluded on March 11, 1994, and the final combined results of the

review were transmitted to both the Commissioner, TDH, and the Executive Director, TNRCC on

December 28, 1994. 

2.1 Status of Items Identified to TDH During the 1994 Routine Review

The 1994 review findings resulted in recommendations to TDH in three program indicators: (1)

Status and Compatibility of Regulations; (2) Adequacy of Product Evaluations; and (3)

Responses to Incidents and Alleged Incidents. TDH responded by letter dated February 9, 1995

and provided the Department’s response and comments to the recommendations. On April 10,

1995, the Office of State Programs (OSP), notified the TDH that their responses would be

evaluated during the next review. The status of these recommendations are as follows:
Texas Final Report Page 3

(1) Status and Compatibility of Regulations. The regulation for "Notification of Incidents" was

identified as being overdue for adoption, and NRC recommended that Texas regulations

equivalent to 10 CFR Parts 31.3 and 31.5 be revised. 

Current Status: TDH has adopted the equivalent regulations compatible to the

"Notification of Incidents," 10 CFR 31.3 and 31.5. This recommendation is closed. 

(2) Adequacy of product evaluations. NRC suggested that the State review a list of

recommendations provided as an enclosure to the 1994 report.

Current Status: The State’s corrective actions were evaluated during the IMPEP review. 

The State has developed template registration certificates and a safety evaluation

checklist to assist the reviewers in including the items listed in the recommendation both

in the evaluation and in the registration certificate. This recommendation is closed.

(3) Responses to Incidents and Alleged Incidents.

(a) The inspection manual refers to a 24-hour, 72-hour, and 10-day inspection

requirements in response to incidents. Inspection criteria for the 24-hour and

10-day inspections are documented in the manual, but no criteria for 72-hour

inspections are provided.

Current Status: The inspection manual procedure referred to is entitled “Incident and

Complaint Investigation” and was effective September 7, 1988. The recommendation

incorrectly states that the procedure requires 72-hour inspections. Under section B,

“Complaints,” of the procedure, there is a requirement to ”initiate a response to each

complaint within 72-hours of the time the complaint is received.” A 72-hour inspection is

not required and therefore criteria for such an inspection are not needed. As an added 

note, the above procedure was revised on May 14, 1997. The revisions retained the

requirements for on-site investigations for significant incidents with the deletion of the

24-hour and 10-day time frames, and retained the 72-hour response to complaints. This

recommendation is closed.

(b) One incident file revealed the following concern - a therapeutic misadministration

of 675 to 750 rem to a patient’s abdomen due to a dislodged source was not

followed up by the TDH. The State should specifically follow up on this incident

including a determination whether this incident was an abnormal occurrence.

Current Status: Follow up had been initiated prior to the March 1994 review but had not

been completed. Since the 1994 review, an Abnormal Occurrence Report has been

submitted to the NRC. This recommendation is closed.

(c) The Inspection Manual does not address misadministration.

Current Status: The inspection manual procedure referred to is entitled "Incident and

Complaint Investigation" and was effective September 7, 1988. The May 14, 1997

revision to the procedure adds the requirement for on-site investigations when

"information in an incident report causes Bureau concern for the health/safety of the

public or medical patient." Discussions with the Technical Assistance Project Manager
Texas Final Report Page 4

on the misadministration issue verified that Texas conducts on-site investigations for all

misadministrations. This recommendation is closed.

2.2 Status of Items Identified to TNRCC During the 1994 Routine Review

The December 28, 1994 review findings had recommendations for the TNRCC in seven program

indicators: (1) Legal Authority; (2) Status and Compatibility of Regulations; (3) Administrative

Procedures; (4) Staffing Level; (5) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; (6) Inspection

Procedures; and (7) Enforcement Procedures. The TNRCC responded by letter dated January

30, 1995. OSP notified the TNRCC by letter dated March 20, 1995, that the progress on each

recommendation by TNRCC would be evaluated during the next review. On March 14, 1995,

TNRCC notified NRC of additional progress made with respect to the 1994 recommendations. 

The current status of these recommendations is as follows:

(1) Legal Authority

(a) A recommendation was made for the State to take legislative action to revise the

definition of low-level waste and the limitations on the disposal of transuranic

concentrations greater than 10 nanocuries per gram. 

Current Status: Legislation was introduced in the 1995 and 1997 legislative session;

however, the legislation did not pass. Detailed discussion can be found under the noncommon performance indicator, Legislation and Regulations, Section 4.1. This

recommendation is considered closed and will be tracked as a new recommendation (see

Section 5.0).

(b) A recommendation was made for the State to revise the statutory definition of

byproduct material to be compatible with 10 CFR Part 40.

Current Status: Legislation introduced into the 1997 legislative session was adopted and

the statutory definition of byproduct material was made compatible with 10 CFR Part 40. 

This recommendation is closed.

(2) Status and Compatibility of Regulations. One regulation concerning self-insurance

(Criterion 9) of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A needed to be adopted for the uranium

program.

Current Status: This regulation was adopted by TNRCC in a rule package effective June

6, 1997. This recommendation is closed.

(3) Administrative Procedures

(a) A recommendation that the license renewal process be utilized to update both the

reclamation/restoration plans and the associated cost estimates.

Current Status: TNRCC updated, and implemented a detailed written procedure for

establishing financial assurance. This recommendation is closed.

(b) A recommendation was made for better documentation between the Texas LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority (TLLRWDA) and the TNRCC.
Texas Final Report Page 5

Current Status: Standard documentation was developed and implemented for

documentation between the TLLRWDA and the TNRCC. This recommendation is closed.

(4) Staffing Level. A recommendation was made for two additional technical staff members

to help with the uranium recovery licensing backlog.

Current Status: TNRCC added four new technical staff and one new administrative staff

positions, and established a two year time frame to overcome the licensing backlog. 

Considerable progress was made in reducing the backlog during the period. The

licensing actions are being tracked and completed in accordance with the administrative

procedure. Since the uranium program is being transferred to TDH, and given the

progress made since the last review, this recommendation is closed.

(5) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. A recommendation was made for the staff to

identify the regulatory bases for requests to TLLRWDA for information and clarification by

citing criteria and standards in the regulations. 

Current Status: TNRCC implemented the citing of rules in their deficiency letters and

correspondence. This recommendation is closed.

(6) Inspection Procedures. A recommendation was made for the TNRCC to update the

Inspection Manual.

Current Status: TNRCC developed and revised the inspection procedures. This

recommendation is closed.

(7) Enforcement Procedures. A recommendation was made to revise the handling of

enforcement actions to assure a more expeditious transmittal of enforcement letters to

licensees.

Current Status: A procedure for tracking enforcement actions and reports was

implemented and the reports and associated enforcement actions are being transmitted

in accordance with the administrative procedures. This recommendation is closed.

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies five common performance indicators to be used in reviewing both NRC

Regional and Agreement State programs. These indicators are: (1) Status of Materials

Inspection Program; (2) Technical Staffing and Training; (3) Technical Quality of Licensing

Actions; (4) Technical Quality of Inspections; and (5) Response to Incidents and Allegations.

3.1 Status of Materials Inspection Program

The BRC's program for this common performance indicator is discussed in this section. 

Information for TNRCC in this area for the non-common performance indicators, low-level

radioactive waste disposal program and uranium recovery program, is discussed in Sections

4.3.1 and 4.4.1. 

The team focused on four factors in reviewing this indicator: inspection frequency; overdue

inspections; initial inspection of new licenses; and timely dispatch of inspection findings to
Texas Final Report Page 6

licensees. This evaluation is based on Texas' questionnaire responses to this indicator, data

gathered independently from the State's inspection data tracking system, the examination of

completed licensing and inspection casework, and interviews with managers and staff.

BRC uses several data bases to manage the State’s radiation control program. BRC uses the

data to schedule those inspections that will become due in the next quarter. This inspection due

list is forwarded to the regional offices for action. Regional managers also have access to similar

information from a network server. Several checks and balances are in place to assure that

inspections occur within three months of the planned date. 

BRC conducts unannounced inspections, however, the BRC’s general practice is to give short

notice to medical facilities and certain other licensees before the inspection. BRC reported that

this practice has been found to provide less disruption in patient care and effectively uses the

inspector’s time. BRC believes that announced inspections permit better use of inspection 

resources and that is a factor in maintaining a low number of overdue inspections in the program. 

The team did not identify from the casework or accompaniments, any difference in the quality of

inspections or the number of findings because of this practice. 

The team's review of the BRC's inspection priorities verified that the BRC's inspection

frequencies for various types or groups of licenses are at least as frequent as similar license

types or groups listed in the frequency schedule in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC)

2800. BRC requires more frequent inspections in some license categories as follows: waste

processors were verified to be inspected on a six month frequency compared to the NRC one

year frequency; processors of loose material are inspected every six months compared to NRC

one year frequency for Type A broad manufacturers; rare-earth extraction and processing

licensees are inspected every six month compared to NRC three year frequency; a specific

licensee's low-level waste burial sites are inspected every six months compared to NRC one year

frequency for commercial disposal; and industrial calibration and reference sources are inspected

every four years where NRC does not have an unique category for this group of licensees.

In the questionnaire, BRC reported as of April 30, 1997, only six core inspections were overdue

by more than 25 percent of the State's established inspection frequency. These licensees were

overdue from 12 to 31 months beyond the 25 percent of the BRC's established frequency. 

These licensees are located in two western regions that did not have inspectors assigned at the

time of the review. Inspectors from other regions are conducting inspections in these regions,

workload permitting. Although BRC is hiring new inspectors to fill the existing vacancies, they

expect to continue shifting inspectors to maintain inspection schedules in the western regions. 

The number of overdue core inspections is below the 10% evaluation criteria for satisfactory

performance for this indicator.

BRC indicated that approximately 291 new licenses had been issued during the review period. 

The BRC's questionnaire response reported that 11 inspections of new licensees were overdue

according to NRC's inspection frequency for new licensees. On review of these 11 licensees

with BRC, the review team noted that the number of overdue new inspections reported in the

questionnaire was incorrect. Only three inspections of new licensees are overdue. These

licensees were overdue from 10 to 15 months beyond the NRC frequency for new licensees. 

Considerable inspection effort is dedicated to new license inspections. The team considered the

overdues and noted that the three licenses overdue at the time of the review is acceptable when

compared with the total number of new licenses issued. 
Texas Final Report Page 7

The State reported in their response to the questionnaire that 115 licensees had submitted 1,919

requests for reciprocity during the review period, of which 80 were from licensees with inspection

intervals of three years or less. The State reported that 74 reciprocity licenses were inspected,

which exceeds the IMC 1220 guidance for conducting reciprocity inspections. In addition, the

State conducted 122 additional non-reciprocity inspections of industrial radiography field sites.

The team evaluated the timeliness of inspection results issued to licensees. The team reviewed

the results of 12 inspections. The typical procedure for issuing inspection results is as follows: 

(1) the inspector prepares field notes to transmit the inspection results to the Austin office; (2) a

transmittal letter containing the inspection findings is prepared in the Austin office; (3) senior staff

review the letter and inspection report, and (4) BRC transmits the letter to the licensee after

management review. Generally, the inspection results are forwarded to the licensee within 30

days. Reviewers found that inspection files in Austin were generally well maintained with

pertinent background information on the inspections available in the file. All files clearly showed

that management had reviewed the inspection report and concurred with the inspector’s findings. 

BRC uses three interrelated data bases to help in the management of licensing, inspections and

reciprocity activities. BRC can extract data on a State-wide and regional basis. Additionally, they

can retrieve data on individual licensees, program codes or an individual inspector’s activities. 

BRC quickly extracted information from the databases in response to questions posed by the

team.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Texas' performance

with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.

3.2 Technical Staffing and Training

Except as noted in the discussion, the BRC's program for this common performance indicator is

discussed in this section. Information for TNRCC in this area for the non-common performance

indicators, low-level radioactive waste disposal program and uranium recovery program, is

discussed in Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2.

Issues central to the evaluation of this indicator include the radioactive materials program staffing

level, technical qualifications of the staff, training, and staff turnover. To evaluate these issues,

the review team examined the State's questionnaire responses relative to this indicator,

interviewed selected BRC and TNRCC managers and staff, and considered any possible

workload backlogs in both agencies.

The BRC organization chart shows that the Bureau has a total of 138 positions. BRC has an

Administrative Office with 24 positions, the Division of Licensing, Registration and Standards with

38 positions, the Division of Compliance and Inspection with 38 positions, and the Regional

Health Department Offices (10) have a total of 38 positions for materials and x-ray inspections. 

The BRC organization was revised in January 1996 to reflect a flat matrix type of organization for

the technical divisions which utilize the concept of Project Managers, and these Project

Managers coordinate their work through the Deputy Directors on a daily basis. Only two recent

vacancies were reported in the materials area, one had been filled by the time of the review, and

interviews were ongoing for the other position during the review. These resources were

determined to be properly balanced between licensing, inspection, and incident response, and

the vacancy at the time of review had not adversely impacted the performance of the program as

discussed under Section 3.1. Three individuals within the Division of Licensing also perform the
Texas Final Report Page 8

reviews of sealed sources and devices (SS&D). A discussion of SS&D personnel training is

covered in Section 4.2.2. 

The BRC has established qualifications for the Environmental Quality Specialist positions which

includes the health physicists. Applicants are required to have a baccalaureate degree in a

physical or (appropriate) life science. They are usually assigned basic responsibilities in the

program until sufficient training and experience are obtained. They receive training in health

physics, nuclear medicine uses, materials licensing, inspection procedures for radioactive

materials or radiation producing devices, industrial radiography, well logging, emergency

response, environmental monitoring, and transportation. Increased training warrants their

assignment to more complex responsibilities. 

BRC trains individuals on a case-by-case basis factoring in the individual's basic experience and

program needs and uses a data base for planning, scheduling and monitoring individual training. 

Personnel in the Licensing Division are assigned increasingly complex licensing case work under

the direction of senior staff. License reviewers also accompany experienced inspectors during

compliance inspections of complex licenses to gain field experience and during pre-license

inspections. 

The inspection staff receives the same basic training as the licensing staff. Inspectors are

required to demonstrate competence during accompaniments by the supervisor prior to being

given permission to perform inspections independently. The BRC’s inspector accompaniment

process and the team’s findings are discussed in Section 3.4. The review team determined that

all staff utilized for the BRC’s program were technically qualified by evidence of their training and

experience. 

Some licensing backlogs have been experienced in the BRC’s Licensing Section. BRC

management related that this issue had been discussed internally, and that BRC was looking for

ways in which to streamline the licensing process and be more efficient. TNRCC also has some

licensing and inspection backlogs in the uranium program which will be transferred to BRC

effective July 21, 1997. BRC managers have already begun discussions internally and with the

managers of TNRCC uranium program to assess the staffing and other resources needs to carry

out the combined materials and uranium programs. Five FTEs will be transferred from TNRCC

to BRC for maintenance of the uranium program, and TDH has agreed to add another three

FTEs for the program.

The State continues to be committed to continued training as needed to allow the staff to carry

out the duties and functions of the radiation control program. Training at NRC sponsored

courses was provided by NRC during the previous years, and the State attempted to have

monies appropriated for their training needs by the recent State Legislature that meets every two

years. However, the legislation did not pass, and the State is continuing to look for training

options that will allow for continued training, and for training at NRC sponsored courses. 

Additional discussion of the TNRCC staffing and training for the low-level waste program and the

current uranium program will be discussed under the respective non-common indicators.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Texas’ performance

with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.
Texas Final Report Page 9

3.3 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The BRC's program for this common performance indicator is discussed in this section. 

Information for TNRCC in this area for the non-common performance indicators, low-level

radioactive waste disposal program and uranium recovery program, is discussed in Sections

4.3.3 and 4.4.3.

The review team examined completed licenses and casework for 29 license actions in 21

specific license files, representing the work of five license reviewers and three licensing

assistants. The license reviewers and supervisors were interviewed when needed to supply

additional information regarding licensing decisions or file contents. 

Licensing actions were reviewed for completeness; consistency; proper radioisotopes and

quantities authorized; qualifications of authorized users; adequate facilities and equipment; and

operating and emergency procedures sufficient to establish the basis for licensing actions. 

Licenses were reviewed for accuracy; appropriateness of the license and of its conditions and

tie-down conditions; and overall technical quality. Casework was reviewed for timeliness;

adherence to good health physics practices; reference to appropriate regulations; documentation

of safety evaluation reports; product certifications or other supporting documents; consideration

of enforcement history on renewals; pre-licensing visits; peer or supervisory review as indicated;

and proper signature authorities. The files were checked for retention of necessary documents

and supporting data.

The license casework was selected to provide a representative sample of licensing actions which

had been completed in the review period and to include work by all reviewers. The sampling

included 26 of the State's major licenses and included the following types: medical broad scope,

industrial radiography (temporary and fixed job sites); mobile nuclear medicine; class B waste

processor; pool irradiator; and nuclear pharmacy. Licensing actions evaluated included 6 new, 1

renewal, 18 amendments, and 4 terminations. A list of these licenses with case specific

comments can be found in Appendix D.

In general, the review team found that the licensing actions were thorough, complete, consistent,

of acceptable or higher quality, and with health and safety issues properly addressed. Three of

the four specific exemptions and one denial for an exemption, identified by the State in the

responses to the questionnaire, were evaluated for this review period. All of them had valid

justifications for acceptance or denial of the exemptions. Three of the exemptions were granted

by amendment and the denial was finalized by letter. The licensee's compliance history

appeared to be taken into account when reviewing renewal applications as determined from

documentation in the license files and/or discussions with the license reviewers.

The review team found that terminated licensing actions were well documented, showing

appropriate transfer records and survey records. The compliance branch conducts confirmatory

surveys as needed prior to the termination being issued. Once an interoffice memorandum

documenting the property for unrestricted use is received, the termination is issued. Sometimes

there are periods of a year or more from when a termination request is received before a license

is terminated. 

Previously, BRC licenses were renewed by letter every five years and the licenses were renewed

in their entirety every ten years. In an effort to utilize their technical staff more efficiently, and to
Texas Final Report Page 10

reduce the number of renewals, the renewal policy was revised in July 1996. The current policy

is to renew all major licenses (in their entirety) on a seven year frequency, and all other licenses

are renewed on a ten year frequency.

BRC has had a large backlog of renewal and amendment requests until last year. Each medical

and industrial license reviewer has an average backlog of 54 licensing actions. BRC has placed

more emphasis on the completion of the actions and over the past two years has dropped the

backlog by over half. The actions are handled by the following priorities: (1) new, (2)

terminations, (3) amendments, and (4) renewals. These priorities seem to be working; however,

the review team suggests that amendments and renewals also be prioritized so that

amendments which impact health and safety (i.e., new RSO because the previous one left the

company; major proposed procedure changes which could effect radiation safety issues) are

completed ahead of the amendments and renewals which are more routine (i.e., adding a

source, or another user when ten sources or users are already on the license; renewal by letter).

The licenses issued by the Medical and the Industrial Sections receive another concurrence

review and are signed by the respective Project Manager in each Section. The Project Managers

can sign their own licenses, but the action does not require additional review except for the

waste processor type licenses, which are reviewed and signed by the Division Director. The

team did not identify any significant performance problems with this policy.

The review team found that the current staff is well trained and experienced in specialized

licensing activities (medical, industrial, special and advanced licensing). The casework was

reviewed for adequacy and consistency with the NRC procedures. BRC has official, written

administrative procedures for licensing reviews. The team found that BRC follows their licensing

guides and administrative procedures during the review process to ensure that licensees submit

the information necessary to support the license. The licensing guides were similar to the NRC

guides. 

Also, under this indicator, the team reviewed the TNRCC program and procedures used for

licensing the inactive non-uranium burial sites that were transferred from TDH and the TNRCC

program for decommissioning sites. TNRCC reported that four former burial sites had been

licensed. Three sites are no longer being used for burial of waste, and are under licenses issued

by TNRCC for the possession, storage, control, and environmental monitoring activities. One

licensee is an active site; however, TNRCC rules prohibit amendments or renewal of this license

to allow any addition or expansion of the disposal facility. TNRCC managers related that these

sites will be decommissioned, and that other sites will be identified and decommissioned in

accordance with TNRCC procedures and regulations that became effective on June 6, 1997. 

TNRCC plans are to implement this program in January 1998.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Texas' performance

with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory.

3.4 Technical Quality of Inspections

The BRC's program for this common performance indicator is discussed in this section. 

Information for TNRCC in this area for the non-common performance indicators, low-level

radioactive waste disposal program and uranium recovery program, is discussed in Sections

4.3.4 and 4.4.4. 
Texas Final Report Page 11

The team reviewed inspection field notes and inspection records for 28 materials inspections

conducted during the review period, reviewed revisions to the Texas enforcement policy, and

interviewed inspectors. At least two reports prepared by each current regional inspector were

evaluated. Inspection casework records selected included higher priority inspections of various

facility types including hospitals, nuclear medicine facilities, academic broad scope institutions,

research and development facilities, industrial radiography and gauge use, well-logging facilities,

nuclear pharmacies, and pool irradiator. Attachment E lists the inspection cases evaluated in

depth with case-specific comments. Prior to the review, two team members performed

accompaniments of nine region-based inspectors on separate inspections of high priority

facilities throughout the State. 

Inspection procedures and techniques utilized by BRC compliance staff were reviewed and

determined to be generally consistent with the inspection guidance identified in NRC Inspection

Manual Chapter 2800. The procedures were used to help inspectors identify root causes and

poor licensee performance. Although field inspections were conducted, the revised inspection

procedures do not direct temporary job sites to be inspected (per IMC 2800 guidance). 

Use of inspection forms (field notes) is determined by regional inspectors. Different revisions

(some outdated) of the State's primary inspection report form were noted to be used in regional

offices. Forms were reviewed and found to be inclusive documents providing general inspection

areas consistent with the types of information and data collected under IMC 2800 and 87100

documents. Except for an industrial radiography form, the State does not use separate

supplements to the inspection report form for various license types. During inspection

preparation, the form is supplemented by the inspector with information specific to the type of

inspection to be performed. Copies of revised inspection field notes contained in IMC 87100

appendices covering the areas of industrial/research development, well logging, industrial

radiography, commercial irradiator, medical broad-scope, well logging, and radiopharmacy were

provided by the team to inspectors and Regional Health Physics Coordinators (RHPC) for use

during inspections. To assist inspector preparation for inspections at different types of facilities,

the review team suggests the State consider standardizing their primary and supplementary field

note forms. These could be modeled after the NRC forms as discussed with BRC.

The review team found the level of detail provided in inspection reports was consistent with

respect to scope of licensed program, licensee organization, management structure, radiation

protection program, personnel protection, area posting and labeling, worker training, radioactive

material control, and material transfer and disposal. For quality assurance of reports the State

has three designated RHPCs in the central office who are assigned for senior technical review,

comment, and issuance of final inspection reports and related enforcement actions identified by

regional inspectors.

Field notes, inspection forms, and enforcement correspondence were found to be generally

complete. Reports were evaluated for inspector documentation of operations observed,

management and worker interviews, independent measurements, follow up to previous items of

non-compliance, and discussion of inspection findings at exit interviews. Overall, the review

team found inspection reports showed good technical quality. Reports contained a section which

identified licensee personnel attending exit meetings but did not document a summary of

inspection findings communicated to licensee management by inspectors. The review team

suggests documenting in reports summary discussions of inspection findings with management

at the conclusion of inspections. As noted in Appendix E, the team found reports contained only

minor inconsistencies related to insufficient detail. 
Texas Final Report Page 12

Documented inspection findings led to prompt regulatory actions and appropriate enforcement. 

Review of the revised enforcement policy (May 1997) showed it included consideration for

emergency orders, management conferences, enforcement conferences, licensee requested

hearings, monetary penalties, and civil and criminal penalties through court proceedings, and

source impoundment. Team interviews with enforcement staff and review of cases involving

escalated enforcement actions determined the State's enforcement policies were effective in

achieving licensee compliance. Enforcement correspondence was timely for files reviewed by

the team. Licensee responses to notices of violations were also timely and reviewed by central

office RHPCs (technical reviewers) to ensure noncompliance issues were addressed. 

Information provided to the review team indicated several types of enforcement actions taken

during the review period including civil actions referred to the State Attorney General,

administrative (monetary) penalties, license suspension and revocation, issue of emergency

orders, enforcement conferences, and provisions for impoundment of radiation sources. In

cases where inspection results indicated a need for escalated enforcement action, enforcement

conferences were held with licensees to discuss inspection findings and possible enforcement

action against them. 

The process for ensuring inspector feedback to licensing staff was not described, however the

inspection reports are available to the licensing staff. As a regionalized function, inspection staff

do not have the opportunity to provide inspection information affecting licensing directly to license

reviewers in the central office. Inspectors discussed inspection findings with the RHPCs, who

served as intermediaries between license and compliance staffs for information sharing.

At the time of the review, the State had 13 qualified field inspectors. Nine inspector

accompaniments (six regional offices) were performed by two review team members. Two

inspectors not accompanied were evaluated as acceptable in the previous NRC review and two

inspectors were newly qualified. Inspection accompaniments were conducted during the weeks

of April 14, May 20, June 9, and June 23, 1997 at the following types of facilities: nuclear

pharmacy, hospital, industrial radiography, portable gauge, and well logging operation. 

Inspectors were well prepared and performed thorough inspections of licensee radiation safety

programs. During the accompaniments inspectors generally showed sound inspection

techniques, appropriate knowledge of the regulations, and demonstrated overall satisfactory

technical performance. A summary of inspection accompaniments is identified in Appendix E.

BRC's policy calls for annual supervisory accompaniments of all qualified inspectors be

performed either by RHPCs or senior inspection staff. In response to the questionnaire, BRC

provided a table of supervisory inspection accompaniments performed during the review period. 

The table shows 12 of 13 inspectors accompanied at least once since 1994. However, from

information in the table and interviews with RHPCs, none of the 12 inspectors identified in the

table received an annual accompaniment each year for calendar years 1994 through 1997. 

RHPC reports of accompaniments indicated that inspector performance evaluations were

complete and thoroughly documented. Since regularly scheduled supervisory accompaniments

provide management with important insight into the quality of the inspection program, the review

team recommends that the State adhere to the policy of annual supervisory accompaniments of

all qualified inspectors. 

The team noted an adequate supply of portable radiation detection instruments for use during

routine inspections was calibrated and maintained by central office staff. Each regional inspector

is issued a ratemeter with GM (side window and pancake) and gamma scintillation detectors, and

a micro-R meter. Regional instrumentation is supplemented as needed with a multichannel
Texas Final Report Page 13

analyzer, alpha scintillation detector, low energy gamma scintillation detector, and low volume air

sampler. At the central office inspector counterpart meetings held every six months, regional

inspectors exchange assigned survey meters for newly calibrated instrumentation. Sufficient

equipment was also available for emergency response activities.

The team toured the State's instrument calibration facility and noted survey instruments are

calibrated with a collimated beam calibrator containing a cesium-137 source with activity of

approximately 100 mCi. This relatively low activity system limits the calibration of some ion

chamber instruments and some GM detectors on the high range (0-2 R/hr and higher). The

review team recommends that all radiation detection instruments used for confirmatory surveys

(field measurements) be calibrated on all ranges.

A tour of the State laboratory found it to include liquid scintillation spectrometers, gas flow

proportional counters, and gamma spectrometers (multichannel analyzer) for full capability to

analyze wipe, water, and soil samples for BRC activities. Impounded sources are maintained at

the State's downhole storage area located near the State laboratory. From interviews with

inspection and laboratory staff, laboratory processing time ranged from immediate to a few

weeks and was acceptable for routine samples taken by inspectors.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Texas' performance

with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory.

3.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

The BRC's program for this common performance indicator is discussed in this section. 

Information for TNRCC in this area for the non-common performance indicators, low-level

radioactive waste disposal program and uranium recovery program, is discussed in Sections

4.3.5 and 4.4.5. 

In evaluating the effectiveness of the State's actions in responding to incidents and allegations,

the review team examined the State's response to the questionnaire regarding this indicator,

reviewed the incidents reported for Texas in the "Nuclear Material Events Database" (NMED)

against those contained in the Texas files, and reviewed the casework and supporting

documentation for 12 material incidents and ten allegation files. 

It was noted that the State informally defines the terms “incident” and "complaint." NRC does not

have a definition for "complaints" but defines "incidents" and "allegations" in Management

Directive 5.6.

The 12 incidents selected for review included one misadministration, one overexposure, one lost

source, one potentially damaged source, two reported loss of control of radioactive material, and

six equipment failures and are listed in Appendix F. Of the ten allegations reviewed, NRC Region

IV office referred six to the State and the other four came directly to the State from allegers. In

addition, the review team interviewed the Director and Deputy Director, Division of Compliance

and Inspection, and the Technical Assistance Project and Complaint Investigation Project

leaders.

Responsibility for initial response and follow-up actions to material incidents and allegations rests

with the Division of Compliance and Inspection. BRC procedures require on-site investigation for

each significant incident and a timely response to allegations. The Technical Assistance
Texas Final Report Page 14

Program Manager discusses each incoming incident or allegation with staff and the response is

coordinated with the appropriate field staff. If necessary, field staff and/or BRC staff conduct an

on-site inspection. Incidents and allegations that have the potential for: (1) media involvement,

(2) violations being issued, or (3) significant impact on public health and safety are brought to

Director, Division of Compliance and Inspection attention promptly. All incidents and allegations

are reviewed by management on at least a quarterly basis. The State summarized incident

information is provided on printed copy to the OSP and to Idaho National Environmental

Engineering Lab (INEEL) for entry into the NMED system. 

The subject areas discussed with staff included the State's incident and allegation process,

tracking system, file documentation, Open Records Act, and notification of incidents to other

Federal and State agencies. Notification to the NRC Emergency Operations Center is made by

the State for incidents that require immediate or 24-hour reporting by the State licensee. 

Although this notification requirement is understood by management, it is not specified in writing.

The review team found that with the exception of some equipment failure incidents, the Texas’

responses generally were well within the performance criteria. Responses were prompt and wellcoordinated, and the level of effort was commensurate with health and safety significance. 

Inspectors were dispatched for on-site investigations when appropriate. In general, the State

took suitable corrective and enforcement actions, notified the NRC, other States, and other

agencies as appropriate, and followed the progress of the investigation through until close out. 

Incident casework reviews were verified as cross-referenced to the corresponding license file. 

The review team noted that the BRC closed four of the six incidents related to equipment failure

without forwarding any information on the potential for a generic design defect to other

appropriate agencies. This issue was discussed with the Technical Assistance Program

manager and his staff which recognized generic design defect problems needing to be evaluated

and forwarded to the agency responsible for the product evaluation and registration certificate. 

In one additional case, there was no information in the file that indicated the manufacturer of the

device was informed by the licensee or the State. (See discussion and suggestion in Section

4.2.3.) 

All incidents and allegations are tracked by a numerical identification system. Discussions with

the Technical Assistance Program Manager indicated that modifications to NMED were

completed in January 1997 by INEEL. These modifications will allow Texas multi-user capability

and the ability to utilize the State’s current numerical identification system. BRC plans to fully

implement the NMED system by the end of 1997. The team discussed the merits of the NMED

system with the Technical Assistance Program Manager who added that they also plan to use

NMED for Technical Assistance Requests, Complaints, and Close-outs. The review team

suggests that the State initiate actions (through implementation of the procedures provided in the

March 1995 Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in the Agreement States) to directly

utilize the NMED system. 

The review team also found good correlation of the State's response to the questionnaire, the

incident information in the files, and the incident information reported on the NMED system

printout for Texas. In most cases, the Texas numerical identification number was crossreferenced on the NMED report.

The team noted that two allegations referred to the State by RIV were categorized as “Technical

Assistance” by Texas. The other eight allegations (four of which were referred by RIV) were

responded to promptly with appropriate investigations, follow-up, and close out actions. 
Texas Final Report Page 15

Complaints and technical assistance requests are documented on the same BRC form and are

therefore handled in a similar manner. The definition differences do not impact the quality of

BRC’s handling of allegations. Information about the allegation, including the identity of a alleger,

is not protected under the State's Open Record Act once the file is closed. During the initial

telephone contact, the alleger is advised that their anonymity can not be guaranteed. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Texas' performance

with respect to the indicator, Response to Incidents and Allegations, be found satisfactory.

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

IMPEP identifies four non-common performance indicators to be used in reviewing Agreement

State programs: (1) Legislation and Regulations, (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation

Program, (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, and (4) Uranium Recovery

Program. The team reviewed each non-common performance indicator as they apply to the

Texas program.

4.1 Legislation and Regulations

4.1.1 Legislative and Legal Authority

The legal authority for the BRC is found in the Texas Radiation Control Act, Health and Safety

Code, Chapter 401. BRC is designated as the State radiation control agency with authority to

regulate byproduct materials, source materials, and special nuclear materials in quantities not

sufficient to form a critical mass. TNRCC’s legal authority for low-level waste activities is found

in Chapter 401 and 402 of the same Act.

The State provided copies of legislation that affects the radiation control program. On June 20,

1997, Texas’ Governor signed legislation transferring responsibility for the uranium recovery

program from the TNRCC to the BRC. Both agencies are participating in ongoing meetings

concerning details of the program’s transfer. Based upon discussions with staff, the

management, and a review of the State's response to the questionnaire, the review team

confirmed that there are no legislative changes that would negatively affect the regulation of

agreement materials, the low-level waste program, or the uranium recovery program. Except as

noted below, the legislation is considered adequate to enable the State to protect public health

and safety. 

The team re-identified an open item from the 1994 review. The Texas Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Authority Act (TLLRWAA) defines low-level waste as:

"Low-level waste means any radioactive material that has a half-life of 35 years or less or

that has less than 10 nanocuries per gram of transuranics and may include radioactive

material not excluded by this subdivision with a half-life of more than 35 years if special

criteria are established by the agency for disposal of that waste. The term does not

include irradiated reactor fuel and high-level radioactive waste as defined by Title 10,

Code of Federal Regulations."

Whereas, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) defines lowlevel waste as:
Texas Final Report Page 16

"Low-level radioactive waste means radioactive waste that--(A) is not high-level

radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material (as defined in section 11e(2)

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2)); and (B) the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, consistent with existing law and in accordance with paragraph (A), classifies

as low-level waste."

Section 336.701(b)(3) authorization to dispose of transuranic radionuclides states the following:

(b) A licensee authorized to dispose of radioactive waste under the rules in this

subchapter shall not accept for disposal:

(3) waste containing transuranic radionuclides in concentrations of 10 or more

nanocuries per gram. This limit of 10 nanocuries per gram of transuranics

shall not be equaled or exceeded in waste disposed of at a land disposal

facility licensed under the rules in this subchapter, notwithstanding the

concentration limits for transuranics specified in §336.362, Appendix E of

this title (relating to Classification and Characteristics of Low-Level

Radioactive Waste);

The NRC regulations in 10 CFR 61.55, "Waste Classification," limits the disposal of alpha

emitting transuranics with a half-life greater than five years to 100 nanocuries per gram.

The team finds that the provisions of the Texas law and regulations cited are not compatible with

the provisions of the LLRWPAA and NRC's regulations. This "jurisdictional gap" in the Texas

legislation creates a situation where the State has not exercised its full authority to regulate lowlevel radioactive waste. This situation may create an orphan waste category for waste containing

radioactivity greater than 10 nanocuries and less than or equal to 100 nanocuries per gram. The

current authority does not prevent this radioactive waste from being disposed of at a site located

in another State. TNRCC cannot change the provisions in its regulations without an essential

change in the provisions of the TLLRWAA. The team found that the State attempted to change

the definition of low-level radioactive waste; however, the House Bill did not pass during the 1995

and 1997 legislative sessions. TNRCC staff indicated that they will attempt to have the bill

reintroduced during the next legislative session (in 1999). 

In entering into an Section 274b agreement with Texas, NRC has transferred its authority over

certain materials and activities to the State. By maintaining this gap in its law, Texas has failed

to exert authority over all matters covered by the Agreement. Currently, this gap in legal authority

is a problem only in theory because the State has yet to license a low-level radioactive waste

disposal facility. However, it is the staff’s understanding that TNRCC may license the low-level

radioactive waste disposal site as early as 1998. Accordingly, the problems created by the

“orphan waste” category may become a problem in fact. At the last program review, NRC

withheld a finding of compatibility because the Texas definition was not compatible with NRC’s

definition. The report concluded that if the provisions are not corrected by the time of the

licensing of the low-level waste facility in Texas, NRC will consider finding the Texas program

incompatible with that of the NRC.

Consistent with this earlier review, the staff believes that the Texas program should be found not

compatible with that of NRC if the gap in Texas law is not corrected by the time the State issues

its final licensing decision. In addition, if the problem is not corrected by the time the facility

begins to operate, it will be incumbent on NRC to consider appropriate action. Depending on the
Texas Final Report Page 17

circumstances surrounding the disposition of the “orphan waste” at that time, such action may

include suspension or termination of part of the Texas agreement pursuant to Section 274j of the

Atomic Energy Act. However, the staff emphasizes that such a decision will depend on the facts

as they exist at that time.

The staff recognizes that correction to the law will depend on actions by the Texas legislature

and not TNRCC. However, the staff notes that it is the State’s responsibility as a whole to

maintain compatibility with NRC’s program, not just TNRCC. As such, the review team

recommends that TNRCC vigorously pursue the changes necessary to make Texas law (statutes

and regulations) compatible with those of NRC in the low-level waste area and, if necessary,

raise this issue to higher levels in the State government. NRC will follow the State’s progress in

this area at subsequent annual meetings.

4.1.2 Status and Compatibility of Regulations

The Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation (TRCR), found in Chapter 401, apply to all

ionizing radiation, whether emitted from radionuclides or devices. BRC requires a license for all

radioactive material including naturally occurring materials, such as radium, and acceleratorproduced radionuclides. BRC also requires a registration for all equipment designed to produce

x-rays or other ionizing radiations.

The review team examined the procedures used in the State's regulatory process and found that

TDH offers the public the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and participate in

public hearings following the comment period. Procedures also require the proposed regulations,

proposed hearing date, hearing comments and analysis be well publicized. Draft copies of the

proposed regulations are provided to NRC during the rule development process. Final

regulations are also placed on the TDH home page and the final regulations are submitted to

NRC.

According to State law, when a rule is in the proposal phase of the adoption process, they may

not propose additional changes to that rule until they adopt the initial rule. This fact and the time

frames in the rulemaking process make it impossible to amend the TRCR with the same

frequency that NRC amends its regulations.

The team evaluated TDH’s and TNRCC’s responses to the questionnaire and reviewed all

regulations adopted by the State since 1993 to determine the status of the Texas regulations. 

This review included regulations required by the State to maintain compatibility through

December 1997. The team also reviewed several regulations that are in the rulemaking process

as a matter of convenience.

The TDH adopted two NRC regulation amendments that became effective since the 1994 review:

“Notification of Incidents,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, 70 amendments (56 FR

64980) which became effective on October 15, 1991. The State’s rules became effective

from September 1993 through October 1995. NRC has reviewed these rules and has

found them to be compatible with NRC's regulations. 

“Licensing and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators,” 10 CFR Part 36

amendment (58 FR 7715) which became effective on July 1, 1993. The State enacted
Texas Final Report Page 18

TRCR Part 36 in June 1996. NRC has reviewed this rule and found it to be compatible

with NRC’s regulations.

The TDH has the following NRC regulation amendment that became effective since the 1994

review in the TDH’s rulemaking process:

"Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial Mechanism," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70

amendments (58 FR 68726 and 59 FR 1618) that became effective on January 28, 1994. 

Note, this rule is designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility. Division 2

compatibility allows the Agreement State flexibility to be more stringent (i.e., the State

could choose not to adopt self-guarantee as a method of financial assurance). If a State

chooses not to adopt this regulation, the State's regulation, however, must contain

provision for financial assurance that includes at least a subset of those provided in

NRC's regulations, e.g., prepayment, surety method (letter of credit or line of credit),

insurance or other guarantee method (e.g., a parent company guarantee). BRC has

proposed this requirement in the development of transportation rules. It is in the second

draft stage of promulgation. NRC found this proposed amendment to TRCR regulations

to be compatible with NRC's requirement if adopted without change.

TNRCC adopted the following 11 NRC regulation amendments that became effective on June 6,

1997. In a letter dated January 7, 1998, NRC found these amendments to TNRCC regulations to

be compatible with NRC's requirement.

“Notification of Incidents,” 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, 70 amendments (56 FR

64980) which became effective on October 15, 1991. 

“Definition of Land Disposal and Waste Site Quality Assurance Programs,” 10 CFR Part

61 amendment (58 FR 33886) which became effective on July 22, 1993. 

“Decommissioning Record Keeping Documentation of Restricted Areas and Spill Sites,"

10 CFR Parts 30 and 40 (58 FR 39628) that became effective on October 25, 1993. 

"Self-Guarantee as an Additional Financial Mechanism," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70

amendments (58 FR 68726 and 59 FR 1618) that became effective on January 28, 1994. 

Note, this rule is designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility. Division 2

compatibility allows the Agreement State flexibility to be more stringent (i.e., the State

could choose not to adopt self-guarantee as a method of financial assurance). If a State

chooses not to adopt this regulation, the State's regulation, however, must contain

provision for financial assurance that includes at least a subset of those provided in

NRC's regulations, e.g., prepayment, surety method (letter of credit or line of credit),

insurance or other guarantee method (e.g., a parent company guarantee). 

“Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards,”

10 CFR Part 40 amendment (59 FR 36026) that became effective on July 1, 1994. 

"Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70

amendments (59 FR 36026) that became effective on August 15, 1994. 

"Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use of Respiratory Protection Equipment," 10

CFR Part 20 amendments (60 FR 7900) that became effective on March 13, 1995. This
Texas Final Report Page 19

rule is designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility. Division 2 compatibility allows

the Agreement State the flexibility to implement more stringent requirements (i.e., the

State could choose to continue to require annual medical examinations).

"Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10 CFR Parts 20 and

61 amendments (60 FR 15649, 60 FR 25983) that will become effective March 1, 1998. 

Agreement States are expected to have an effective rule on the same date.

"Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria," 10 CFR Parts 19

and 20 amendments (60 FR 36038) that became effective August 14, 1995.

"Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70

amendments (60 FR 38235) that became effective November 24, 1995. 

“Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Record Keeping Requirements,” 10 CFR

Parts 20, 30, 40, 61, 70 (61 FR 24669) that became effective on May 19, 1996. 

The following rules were not due during the review period but are in the TDH’s rulemaking

process:

“Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards,”

10 CFR Part 40 amendment (59 FR 36026) that became effective on July 1, 1994. To

assure continuous regulation of the uranium activities, the legislation transferring

responsibility from TNRCC to BRC included a provision to permit the BRC to use the

existing TNRCC regulations. A first draft of TRCR Part 43, “Licensing of Uranium

Recovery Facilities” was being prepared for rulemaking to formalize uranium recovery

activity licensing under BRC’s jurisdiction. This rulemaking package is scheduled to be

submitted in July 1997. NRC found this proposed amendment to TRCR regulations to be

compatible with NRC's requirement, if adopted without change. 

"Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Requirements," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70

amendments (60 FR 38235) that became effective November 24, 1995. This requirement

need not be in effect until November 24, 1998. BRC has proposed this requirement in the

development of its transportation rules. It is in the second draft stage of promulgation. 

NRC found this proposed amendment to TRCR regulations to be compatible with NRC's

requirement, if adopted without change.

“Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Record Keeping Requirements,” 10 CFR

Parts 20, 30, 40, 61, 70 (61 FR 24669) that became effective on May 19, 1996. This

requirement need not be in effect until May 19, 1999. BRC has proposed this

requirement in the development of its transportation rules. It is in the second draft stage

of promulgation. NRC found this proposed amendment to TRCR regulations to be

compatible with NRC's requirement, if adopted without change.

"Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities," 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70

amendments (59 FR 36026) that became effective on August 15, 1994. It is in the

second draft stage of promulgation of TRCR Parts, 11, 21, 41, and 44. This package is

also scheduled for adoption in December 1997. NRC found this proposed amendment to

TRCR regulations to be compatible with NRC's requirement, if adopted without change.
Texas Final Report Page 20

The review team identified two regulations that have not been put into effect in the BRC program:

“Decommissioning Record Keeping Documentation of Restricted Areas and Spill Sites,"

10 CFR Parts 30 and 40 (58 FR 39628) that became effective on October 25, 1993. It is

in the second draft stage of promulgation of TRCR Parts, 11, 21, 41, and 44. The

rulemaking package is scheduled for adoption in December 1997. The team reviewed

the draft regulation. NRC found this proposed amendment to TRCR regulations to be

compatible with NRC's requirement, if adopted without change.

"Quality Management Program and Misadministration," 10 CFR Part 35 amendment (56

FR 34104) which became effective on January 27, 1992. BRC has not adopted the

equivalent to the quality management and misadministration rule. As reported to NRC

previously, BRC withheld adoption of this rule pending the outcome of the National

Academy of Sciences report. NRC is continuing to defer compatibility findings for

Agreement States that have not yet adopted a compatible Quality Management rule, until

NRC issues a revised Part 35 rule, compatibility designations for the new rule are

established, and an effective date for Agreement State implementation has been set. 

Due to the constraints imposed by State law, BRC carefully plans future regulatory actions. It is

the intention of BRC management to address the following regulations as quickly as possible. At

the time of the review the following items are on the BRC’s regulatory agenda:

"Preparation, Transfer for Commercial Distribution and Use of Byproduct Material

for Medical Use," 10 CFR Parts 30, 32 and 35 amendments (59 FR 61767, 59 FR 65243,

60 FR 322) that became effective on January 1, 1995.

"Frequency of Medical Examinations for Use of Respiratory Protection Equipment," 10

CFR Part 20 amendments (60 FR 7900) that became effective on March 13, 1995. This

rule is designated as a Division 2 matter of compatibility. Division 2 compatibility allows

the Agreement State the flexibility to implement more stringent requirements (i.e., the

State could choose to continue to require annual medical examinations).

"Radiation Protection Requirements: Amended Definitions and Criteria," 10 CFR Parts 19

and 20 amendments (60 FR 36038) that became effective August 14, 1995.

"Compatibility with the International Atomic Energy Agency," 10 CFR Part 71 amendment

(60 FR 50248) that became effective April 1, 1996.

"Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting," 10 CFR Parts 20 and

61 amendments (60 FR 15649, 60 FR 25983) that will become effective March 1, 1998. 

Agreement States are expected to have an effective rule on the same date.

“Medical Administration of Radiation and Radioactive Materials,” 10 CFR Part 20.35

amendment (60 FR 48623) that became effective on October 20, 1995.

“Termination or Transfer of Licensed Activities: Record Keeping Requirements,” 10 CFR

Parts 30, 40, and 70 amendments (61 FR 1109) that became effective January 16, 1997.

“Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean Air

Act,” 10 CFR Part 20 amendment (61 FR 65119) that became effective January 9, 1997.
Texas Final Report Page 21

“Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

Within an Agreement State,” 10 CFR Part 150 amendment (62 FR 1662) that became

effective on January 13, 1997.

“Criteria for the Release of Individuals Administered Radioactive Material,” 10 CFR Part

20.35 amendment (62 FR 4120) that became effective on January 29, 1997.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria, the review team recommends that Texas's performance

with respect to the indicator, Legislation and Regulations, be found satisfactory. 

4.2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program

In evaluating the State's Sealed Source & Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program, the review team

examined the information provided by the State relative to this indicator in their response to the

questionnaire, evaluated a sample of the actions completed since the last review, evaluated new

procedures and guidance, and interviewed the TDH staff responsible for SS&D evaluations.

Since the last review, the State has developed template registration certificates and a checklist

to assist in the review of SS&Ds and help to ensure that all pertinent issues are addressed. The

staff has also adopted the use of the NRC’s NUREG-1550, “Standard Review Plan for

Applications for Sealed Source and Device Evaluations and Registrations” as standard reviewer

guidance.

4.2.1 Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program

The review team evaluated 7 registration certificates out of the 16 registration certificates

reported for the period since the last review. The SS&D sheets issued by the State and

evaluated by the review team are listed with case-specific comments in Appendix G. The review

team suggests that the State consider the comments in Appendix G, and take action as the State

deems appropriate. For 6 of the 7 cases reviewed, the overall quality of the evaluations was

good, with minor comments that were addressed during interviews with the staff. However, for

one case (TX-0246-D-103-S), the review team identified a number of inconsistencies and issues

that appeared to be unaddressed in the review. Other unidentified review issues associated with

this case may also exist. The issues identified by the review team are listed in Appendix G, and

were discussed with both the initial and the concurrence reviewers.

Based on the limited evaluation performed by the review team and considering the team's

experience with similar devices, the fact that the device must meet transportation dose rate

requirements before shipment, the expected training level of the users, and the State's belief that

there have been no devices distributed, the review team believes that the immediate health and

safety risk to any potentially current users is low, possibly zero. However, the review team

recommends that the State perform an evaluation to determine the safety significance of the

issues identified by the review team pertaining to registration certificate number TX-0246-D-103-

S and to identify any other issues that may exist, and re-evaluate the application, as necessary,

to ensure that all pertinent safety and regulatory issues are adequately addressed. It was not

possible to determine from the limited number of files reviewed whether the deficiencies noted in

this evaluation was an isolated occurrence or if they may be present in other evaluations. 
Texas Final Report Page 22

 A concurrence review includes an independent technical review of the materials 1

submitted by the applicant and the documents generated by the initial reviewer. The

concurrence review includes evaluation of each area addressed during the initial review (e.g.,

construction of the product, labeling, prototype testing, etc.) but the concurrence review is not to

the same level of detail as the initial review (i.e., it is not necessary to review every page of the

applicant's submittal). The concurrence review must be focused upon ensuring that the product

meets all applicable regulations, that the product would not pose any health or safety concerns,

and that the registration certification provides an adequate basis for licensing. This concurrence

review by a second qualified reviewer is necessary in view of the potential health and safety

implication resulting from the widespread distribution of sealed sources and devices.

Therefore, the review team recommends that the State evaluate an adequate sample of

additional safety evaluations to ensure that the deficiencies identified in TX-0246-D-103-S are

adequately addressed in the additional cases, and to demonstrate that this was an isolated

occurrence.

Through interviews with the staff responsible for performing the safety evaluations, the review

team identified that the concurrence review is currently being performed as a review of the initial

reviewer's evaluation, and is not an independent technical review. The review team

recommends that the State review the issue of concurrence reviews for SS&D safety 1

evaluations and implement procedures that require concurrence review for all future evaluations. 

The review team notes that an independent technical review could have identified the issues

involved in the case detailed in the previous paragraph.

4.2.2 Technical Staffing and Training

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 evaluations 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 this area,

although at the time of this IMPEP review, no registration certificates have been signed by these

additional individuals.

BRC reported that 16 registration certificates were issued or modified during the review period. 

The actions reported by BRC also included one action associated with Naturally Occurring or

Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials (NARM). The review team noted that the initial

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 SS&D 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 Regarding SS&Ds

The details regarding the review of incidents associated with SS&D product failures 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
Texas Final Report Page 23

product evaluation and registration certificate where there is a possibility that the failure or

problem may be a generic issue.

Based on the IMPEP evaluation 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-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program

The review team evaluated the State's responses to the questionnaire, compared Texas lowlevel 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 shifted to TNRCC. Within

TNRCC, the LLRW program is administered by the Underground Injection Control (UIC),

Uranium, and 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 submittals (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, based on familiarity with the

application resulting from the completeness reviews, the TNRCC committed to completing the

review by April 1, 1996. 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 draft, proposed license 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

license.

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 Disposal Inspection

Under this part of the program indicator, the review team evaluated 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
Texas Final Report Page 24

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 frequencies 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. TNRCC staff

investigated these apparent discrepancies and resolved them after the review (see August 15,

1997 memo). The review team 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 that, if warranted by the amount of data, the baseline data

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

4.3.2 Technical Staffing and Training

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 program, 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 application within the mandatory 15

months. The review was completed by the target date (i.e., April 1, 1996); that is, several

months ahead of the mandatory requirement. It should be noted that the State had received and

reviewed various portions of the application prior to the declaration of administrative

completeness. The team was informed that TNRCC staff worked extra hours to meet the target

date.

TNRCC staff is allowed to pursue training as they see the need and as funds are available. 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 inexpensive 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 consolidated compilation of training

completed by staff. TNRCC Technical Training Academy maintains information on all in-house

training of TNRCC staff. Through review of staff resumes, which are maintained current and

reflect training received, the team notes that staff has undertaken additional on-site training,
Texas Final Report Page 25

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 apparent trends in the loss of staff that could adversely affect the program.

4.3.3 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The purpose of the review under this part of the program indicator is to confirm that the State has

an acceptable program for licensing the LLRW disposal facility. To evaluate the technical quality

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 licensing guides such as "Standard Review Plan

for the Review of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility,"

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; the report required extensive effort by the team to conduct the review

because of the need to refer to the application (i.e., the document is not self-contained). Further,

the bases for staff findings (i.e., acceptance of the licensee’s analysis) are not provided

throughout the document. At the time of the review, the TNRCC staff was preparing additional

documentation in the form of prehearing testimony to be submitted that will provide bases for

staff findings. The review team suggests that TNRCC complete their efforts to document bases

for all staff findings.

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 key components of

TNRCC’s review of the TLLRWDA’s performance assessment. No attempt was made to

evaluate the performance assessment, itself. The performance assessment, which analyzes the

long-term, post-closure doses from the site, is essential to the licensing decision. The team’s

review and comment on TNRCC’s review of the TLLRWDA performance assessment are not

intended as a review of TLLRWDA’s assessment or the acceptability of the proposed site. 

Therefore, nothing in this report should be construed as a criticism or evaluation of the license

application, the performance assessment, or the acceptability of the site. TNRCC reviewed the

performance assessment by completing confirmatory 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 in part

because it is largely dependent upon water infiltrating into the disposal cells even though the site

characterization data show that little or no recharge actually occurs at the site. Since the

TLLRWDA analysis conservatively considers the possibility of water getting into the facility, the

performance assessment analysis should be evaluated using a technically rigorous approach

(i.e., the performance assessment analysis needs to be reviewed to ensure that appropriate

parameter values were used in the analysis). The team found that in several important areas

TNRCC could conduct additional analyses to ensure that the performance assessment used
Texas Final Report Page 26

appropriate input values and to ensure that the sensitivity to certain key input values was

identified.

1. TLLRWDA analyzed infiltration into the facility by running a modified version of the HELP

computer code which had been approved by the HELP code developer. TNRCC staff

reviewed the input and made confirmatory runs.

Sensitivity analyses performed by TLLRWDA show that a long-term average 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 was given to the sensitivity of the calculated infiltration to

evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration significantly effects recharge in arid areas. In

reaching a proposed licensing 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,

which could be credible, could have the same effect on calculated infiltration as rainfall

amounts.

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

the waste and the percolating water. The release model used is commonly cited in the

literature. TLLRWDA uses a factor (fL) to relate releases from a surface wash-off type

process to a diffusion process. TLLRWDA relates the f factor to the contact time factor L

(t ) in IMPACTS. Because of known concerns with the derivation and basis of the contact c

time factor in IMPACTS, TLLRWDA used a different approach to derive values for the fL

factor. Beginning with studies that were completed in support of the Fort Hancock site

and continuing with Revisions 4 and 8 of the application for the Sierra Blanca site, the

TLLRWDA estimated values for fL by looking at the magnitude of tc values from the

IMPACTS methodology; then developed a methodology to calculate fL values by using

source terms from other models, including the DUST computer code (developed under

agreement with Brookhaven National Laboratory for the NRC). DUST and other models

were used to estimate appropriate fL values by using the source terms generated from

these other models in TLLRWDA’s mass balance model to back calculate a range of

equivalent f values. These values were then compared to TLLRWDA’s original value for L

fL and used as a basis for revising the TLLRWDA’s fL to an appropriately conservative

value. Estimated f values derived for use in the analysis are: L

Tc-99 and I-129 0.05

Cl-36 0.01

All other radionuclides 0.1

In discussions with TNRCC staff, the team learned that these values were considered

acceptable because they were several orders of magnitude larger than the tc factors in

IMPACTS. However, TNRCC did not review the input used in the DUST code or make

any confirmatory runs. In fact, TNRCC did not have a copy of the input for the DUST

code used by TLLRWDA. For example, the team questioned TNRCC staff about the

basis for the assumed concrete diffusion coefficient of 1x10 cm /s; however, at the time -9 2

of the discussion the staff did not know the basis for the value. Additional information

was provided at a later date, but justification for the assumed value was not included. 

Because the value for the fL factor can result in a 1-2 order of magnitude variation in
Texas Final Report Page 27

calculated doses, the team believes that TNRCC’s review could be strengthened by

checking the appropriateness of the derived values through either independent

confirmatory analyses or review of the literature. 

To further strengthen the technical analysis, TNRCC staff should review the specific

literature cited by TLLRWDA in selecting distribution coefficients (Kd) for the waste area

(source area) to ensure that the wasteform and chemistry are comparable to the

proposed Texas facility. TNRCC staff reviewed distribution coefficients assumed for the

soils, by comparing them against values in the literature. However, Kd’s assumed for the

waste area (Kd) are several orders of magnitude larger than for the soils for several key w

radionuclides (i.e., C-14, I-129, and Tc-99). Based on the approach used by TLLRWDA,

Kd's for the soil should have little effect on the calculated dose. However, the K d for the

waste (K ) can greatly impact the calculated dose. For example, the calculated ground- d

w

water concentration for C-14 (Class A waste) based on a Kd value used by TLLRWDA in

an earlier submittal when compared with the Kd value for their last submittal, results in a

two-order of magnitude reduction. TNRCC staff based their review of TLLRWDA’s use of

its waste distribution coefficients through their experience with distribution coefficients for

soils in high pH environments, conversations with NRC staff, and by reviewing a research

paper on waste distribution coefficients written by NRC staff.

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 made confirmatory 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., fsurface

= 0.75) and the remaining 25% would be available to travel to the ground water (i.e., faquifer

= 0.25). TNRCC staff questioned the basis for these factors, but accepted the use of

them because they agreed that a ground water pathway analysis must be done, and

recognized that any factors assumed for that analysis represent site conditions that do

not exist and therefore must to some extent be arbitrarily defined. These factors have

minimal effect on the calculated doses. For example, an arbitrary conservative increase

in the f value from 0.25 to 1.0, increases the calculated dose by only a factor of four, aquifer

but still well below the dose limit. However, if this factor is considered in combination

with the fL factor (discussed above), it can result in a significant variation in the calculated

dose. As an arbitrary conservative illustration, the faquifer factor (faquifer = 1) combined with

the f factor (f = 1) allow three-orders of magnitude increase in the calculated ground- L L

water dose from exposure to Cl-36 . TNRCC representatives stated the peak dose

occurs at approximately 50,000 years post closure, according to TLLRWDA estimates. 

The TNRCC statement was made during the Management Review Board meeting and no

technical supporting basis for the 50,000 year estimate was provided. However, the team

realizes that NRC does not recommend assessments of doses occurring after 10,000

years for the use as a basis for compliance with the performance objective. Although

TNRCC staff correctly maintains that the f and f factors by themselves do not surface aquifer

greatly affect the calculated doses, sensitivity analysis using these factors in combination

with other factors or parameters should be considered.
Texas Final Report Page 28

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 A and 7.75 m

for Class B/C) multiplied by the total surface 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 is 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. TNRCC staff have indicated that the above assumptions were

used in the inhalation exposure scenario which calls for an averaging of the surface

contamination concentration to calculate air concentrations. In addition, the ingestion

scenarios for the soil surface do not specify where on the site animals would graze or

where vegetation would be grown. While TNRCC staff believe that it is prudent and

conservative to use an average concentration, this conclusion was not supported by

either a technical analysis of the difference in initial release times for Class A and Class

B/C wastes or an analysis of the additional dilution reflected in the calculation

methodology. Therefore, TNRCC staff should undertake analyses to evaluate the

appropriateness of the approach used in determining the dilution volume.

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. A layer of soil would be

placed over the gravel and waste canister. The contrast in hydraulic properties between

the gravel and soil has the potential of creating a capillary barrier, which would block

water from moving down into the gravel and cause water to be channeled toward the

waste, and needs to be further understood. The potential for this occurring should can be

reviewed by modeling moisture movement within the facility. 

The review team recommends that TNRCC ensure that well documented technical bases exist

for the performance assessment. Sensitivity analyses could be completed to ensure that key

aspects of the performance assessment analysis have been reviewed. 

4.3.4 Technical Quality of Inspections

The intent of the review under this part of the program indicator is to evaluate the State in terms

of the quality of its inspection of the LLRW facility. Because the LLRW facility is in a prelicensing 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 Response to Incidents and Allegations

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 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 respect to the indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Program, be found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.
Texas Final Report Page 29

4.4. Uranium Recovery Regulatory Program

In the process of evaluating this performance indicator, the review team evaluated the State's

responses to the questionnaire; reviewed information provided by the State regarding 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 selected staff and managers 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 

responsible 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 mill licensed 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 Resources

Incorporated (URI) sites identified as Kingsville Dome, and Rosita. The Vasquez facility has not

yet been licensed.

4.4.1 Status of Uranium Recovery Program Inspection

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 IMC 2801. However,

due to other programmatic priorities such as the Low-Level Waste Program, development of

regulations, and 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, 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 affect the

health and safety of the workers and the public. The review team noted that the two year sites

are not consistent with IMC 2800.

The State reported that four licenses were overdue for inspection (overdue by more than 25% of

the NRC frequency). A review of the tracking system and the inspection files confirmed this

information and noted that the four overdue sites had inspection frequencies of one year. The

review team recommends that an action plan be developed and implemented by TDH to

overcome the inspection backlog in the uranium recovery program.

At the time of the review, none of the operational production sites were due for inspection. 

Therefore, in lieu of inspector accompaniments, the reviewer accompanied the Section manager
Texas Final Report Page 30

to the URI, Kingsville Dome facility for a visit to a production site. This visit was conducted on

June 4, 1997. TNRCC initially reported in the questionnaire that no annual supervisory

accompaniments of inspectors had been performed; however, documentation was reviewed

showing that the lead inspector was accompanied by the supervisor in March 1997. The other

two inspectors work under the supervision of the lead inspector during team type inspections. 

The team considered the content of the report documenting the accompaniment, interviewed the

supervisor and the inspector, and determined the accompaniment to be satisfactory.

All inspection reports are reviewed and signed by the supervisor prior to issuance. Notice of

violations were confirmed to be transmitted to the licensee within the 30 days limit established by

administrative procedures. The program has a tracking system for management of inspection

reports, issuance of notices of violation, and escalated enforcement actions. 

4.4.2 Technical Staffing and Training

The Manager (Registered Professional Engineer) of the UURW Section has the Section

organized into three teams; the UIC Permitting Team, the Licensing Team, and the Inspections

and Compliance Team. The Licensing Team handles the uranium, LLRW and buried sites for

specific licensees, and consists of a Team Leader and eight other professionals. The team is

made up of two engineers (PE’s), one Ph.D. biologist, four health physicists, two geologists, and

one vacant hydrologist position. The Team Leader also has many years experience in the

uranium industry.

The Inspection and Compliance Team consists of a Team Leader and seven other professionals

which includes two engineers (one PE), two geologists, and three health physicists. The Team

Leader is also a geologist with several years experience. Two of the health physicists are still in

training and are being scheduled for NRC training as the space becomes available. 

The review team examined the training, education, and experience of the staff members and

found that the qualifications of the technical staff are commensurate with the expertise identified

as necessary to regulate uranium recovery and 11e(2) byproduct material. 

Additional support is provided by the UIC Permitting Team and the Division staff in environmental

surveillance , environmental monitoring, verification surveys, accounting and finance, systems

analysis, legal staff, and sample analysis on an as needed basis. TDH Laboratory is under

contract to provide sample analyses as needed, and was visited by the review team and found to

be a state-of-the-art facility which participates in laboratory inter-comparison programs. 

Additional details of the laboratory can be found in Section 3.4.

4.4.3 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The evaluation of this area focused on a review of the licensing process and the evaluation of

health physics type issues. Three recent licensing actions were evaluated as a sample of work

performed by the Section’s Licensing Team, and included licensing actions performed by each of

the three project managers on the Licensing Team. This casework is identified as: (1) Chevron

Resources, Panna Maria Project, (RW2602), which is a conventional mill tailings pond under

reclamation/closure; (2) Everest Exploration, Inc., Hobson (RW 3626-000), McBryde (RW 3626-

001), Tex-1 (RW 3626-003), and Mt. Lucas (RW 3626-005) sites, which are in-situ sites that are

all under restoration/reclamation; and (3) Uranium Resources, Inc., Kingsville Dome (RW 3653-

000), Rosita (RW 3653-001), and the Vasquez (RW 3700) sites.
Texas Final Report Page 31

The detailed licensing process includes a tracking system covering the administrative and

technical review of all applications. Each phase and step of the process were found to have

documentation relative to the issues under review, and reviewed and concurred upon by the

appropriate technical disciplines and representatives of the licensing team, the inspection/

compliance team, and management. The review team noted that the team approach is effective

in getting peer review and the necessary expertise applied to the specific review.

In examining the license and selected background information in the file, the review team found

that the licenses included appropriate license conditions for the reclamation/closure operations at

the facility. Detailed procedures have been tied down by license conditions. 

4.4.4 Technical Quality of Inspections

The review team examined the compliance summaries prepared for each licensee identified

under the above Section (4.4.3), and the latest inspection report and enforcement action

prepared for the licenses. The documentation for these activities show that inspections and

audits adequately covered the scope, completeness, and technical accuracy necessary to

determine compliance with regulations, license conditions, and available guidance. The reports

were narrative type reports with good detail, and with well documented and referenced violations

as appropriate. Appropriate enforcement actions were taken given the scope of the violations

noted. 

The inspection reports and enforcement actions are also tracked in the system, and the reports

receive appropriate review and concurrence by other members of the inspection team, the

licensing team, and managers. Any enforcement actions going beyond a notice of violation must

also be reviewed by the Legal Section and be signed by the Commission. 

4.4.5 Response to Incidents and Allegations

The State reported seven incidents (four sites listed in TNRCC’s questionnaire response) but

there were no allegations pertaining to the uranium recovery activities. The incidents were

addressed in a timely manner and the documentation was complete and timely. The evaluations

and actions taken by the States were determined to be satisfactory. The documentation was

located in the license file and the lead inspector’s incident file.

TNRCC has one staff person who has received training under the NMED system and the Section

has received the software for implementation. TNRCC summarized incident information is

provided on printed copy to the OSP and to INEEL for entry into the NMED system. 

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria for the above five performance areas, the review team

recommends that Texas' performance with respect to the indicator, Uranium Recovery Program,

be found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement. 

5.0 SUMMARY

As noted in Sections 3 and 4 above, the review team found the State's performance with respect

to each of the common performance indicators and the non-common indicators, Legislation and

Regulations and Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program to be satisfactory. The review

team found the State's performance with respect to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Program and the Uranium Recovery Program to be satisfactory with recommendations for
Texas Final Report Page 32

improvement. Accordingly, the team recommended, and the MRB concurred in finding the Texas

program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's program.

Below is a summary list of recommendations and suggestions, as mentioned in earlier sections

of the report, for consideration by the State.

1. The review team suggests that amendments and renewals be prioritized so that

amendments which impact health and safety (i.e., new RSO because the previous one

left the company; major proposed procedure changes which could effect radiation safety

issues) are completed ahead of the amendments and renewals which are more routine

(i.e., adding a source, or another user when ten sources or users are already on the

license; renewal by letter). (Section 3.3)

2. The review team suggests the State consider standardizing their primary and

supplementary field note forms. These could be modeled after the NRC forms

as discussed with BRC. (Section 3.4)

3. The review team suggests documenting in reports summary discussions of inspection

findings with management at the conclusion of inspections. (Section 3.4)

4. The review team recommends that the State adhere to the policy of annual supervisory

accompaniments of all qualified inspectors. (Section 3.4)

5. The review team recommends that all radiation detection instruments used for

confirmatory surveys (field measurements) be calibrated on for all ranges encountered by

inspectors. (Section 3.4)

6. The review team suggests that the State initiate actions (through implementation of the

procedures provided in the March 1995 Handbook on Nuclear Material Event Reporting in

the Agreement States) to directly utilize the NMED system. (Section 3.5)

7. The team recommends that TNRCC vigorously pursue the changes necessary to make

Texas law (statutes and regulations) compatible with those of NRC in the low-level waste

area and, if necessary, raise this issue to higher levels in the State government. (Section

4.1)

8. The review team suggests that the State consider the comments in Appendix G, and take

action as the State deems appropriate. (Section 4.2.1)

9. The review team recommends that the State perform an evaluation to determine

the safety significance of the issues identified by the review team pertaining

to registration certificate number TX-0246-D-103-S and to identify any other issues that

may exist, and re-evaluate the application, as necessary, to ensure that all pertinent

safety and regulatory issues are adequately addressed. (Section 4.2.1)

10. The review team recommends that the State evaluate an adequate sample of additional

safety evaluations to ensure that the deficiencies identified in TX-0246-D-103-S are

adequately addressed in the additional cases, and to demonstrate that this was an

isolated occurrence. (Section 4.2.1)
Texas Final Report Page 33

11. The review team recommends that the State review the issue of concurrence reviews for

SS&D safety evaluations and implement procedures that require an independent

technical review for all future evaluations.(Section 4.2.1)

12. The review team suggests that the State consider assigning safety evaluations to those

staff members currently being trained to perform SS&D 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. (Section 4.2.2)

13. 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. 

(Section 4.2.3)

14. The review team suggests that, if warranted by the amount of data, the baseline data

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

(Section 4.3.1)

15. The review team suggests that a consolidated training record be developed to enable

assessment of training across the entire program. (Section 4.3.2)

16. The review team suggests that TNRCC complete their efforts to document the bases for

all staff findings. (Section 4.3.3)

17. The review team recommends that TNRCC ensure that well documented technical

bases exist for the performance assessment. Sensitivity analyses could be completed to

ensure that key aspects of the performance assessment analysis have been reviewed.

(Section 4.3.3)

18. The review team recommends that an action plan be developed and implemented by

TDH to overcome the inspection backlog in the uranium recovery program. 

(Section 4.4.1)
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members

Appendix B Texas Organization Charts

Appendix C Texas' Questionnaire Response

Appendix D License File Reviews

Appendix E Inspection File Reviews

Appendix F Incident File Reviews

Appendix G Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Reviews

Attachment 1 Texas' Response to Review Findings

Attachment 2 TNRCC’s Response to Revised LLRW Section
APPENDIX A

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

Name Area of Responsibility

Richard L. Woodruff, RII Team Leader

Technical Staffing and Training

Uranium Recovery Program

Michelle Burgess, NMSS Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program

Elizabeth Drinnon, GA Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

Craig Gordon, RI Technical Quality of Inspections

James Myers, OSP Status of Materials Inspection Program

Legislation and Regulations

Thomas O’Brien, OSP Response to Incidents and Allegations

Mark Thaggard, NMSS Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program
APPENDIX B

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS
APPENDIX C

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

QUESTIONNAIRE - RESPONSE