UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

October 27, 2016 

Charles Maguire, Division Director 

Radioactive Materials Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 13087, MC-233 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Dear Mr. Maguire: 

On September 6, 2016, a Management Review Board (MRB), which consisted of U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) senior managers and an Organization of Agreement States 

liaison to the MRB, met to consider the results of a special review of the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Agreement State Program. The review was conducted under 

the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste non-common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions sub-element. 

The special review focused on TCEQ’s licensing process for reviewing depleted uranium 

disposal including the basis for granting a license amendment to dispose of depleted uranium, 

the associated performance assessment model for such disposal, and procedures and guidance 

related to the use of the performance assessment model. The enclosed final report contains a 

summary and recommendations for TCEQ’s consideration with respect to improvements in 

documentation, including its communications with the licensee, process related to resolution of 

placeholder inputs in the performance assessment models, and process to track and identify 

technical analyses. 

Section 3.0, page 5 of the enclosed final report contains a summary of the review team’s 

findings and recommendations. The review team concluded that the site characteristics provide 

adequate margin to protect public health and safety, and the MRB agreed with the team’s 

conclusion. The review team provided some recommendations for improvement with regard to 

TCEQ’s documentation of this complex licensing action and corresponding decision making 

process, and the MRB agreed with those recommendations for improvement. The review team 

recommended, and the MRB agreed, that NRC staff follow up with TCEQ on the documentation 

improvements at the next IMPEP review of the Texas Agreement State Program in 2018. 
C. Maguire 2 

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the NRC review team. I also wish to 

acknowledge the continued support of the Agreement State program by you and your staff. If 

you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact Paul Michalak at 

(301) 415-5804 or via e-mail at Paul.Michalak@nrc.gov. 

Sincerely, 

 

 /RA/ 

Marc L. Dapas, Director 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards 

Enclosure: 

Special Review Report 
C. Maguire 2 

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to the NRC review team. I also wish to 

acknowledge the continued support of the Agreement State program by you and your staff. If 

you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact Paul Michalak at 

(301) 415-5804 or via e-mail at Paul.Michalak@nrc.gov. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

Marc L. Dapas, Director 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards 

Enclosure: 

Special Review Report 

 

ML16271A532 

OFC MSTR/ASPB NMSS/DUWP MSTR/ASPB MSTR/NMSS Tech Ed NMSS 

NAME SPoy DEsh 

via email 

w/edits

PMichalak DCollins WMoore MDapas 

DATE 9/26 /16 9/26/16 10/20/16 10/24/16 10/24/16 10/27/16 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
 Enclosure 

SPECIAL REVIEW OF THE 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM 

APRIL 4–5, 2016

 REPORT 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents the results of the special review conducted with the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) related to performance assessment modeling and a license 

amendment associated with the disposal of depleted uranium under TCEQ’s Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program. The special review, conducted at the invitation 

of TCEQ, focused on TCEQ’s licensing process for reviewing depleted uranium disposal, 

including the basis for granting a license amendment to dispose of depleted uranium, the 

associated performance assessment model for such disposal, and procedures and guidance 

related to the use of the performance assessment model. The review team concluded that the 

site characteristics provide adequate margin to protect public health and safety. However, the 

review team identified some items of concern that involved the lack of documentation needed to 

support this complex licensing decision. The review team recommended for TCEQ’s 

consideration, and the Management Review Board (MRB) agreed with, documentation-related 

items for improvement (Section 2). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will follow 

up on these recommended items for improvement during the next Integrated Materials 

Performance Evaluation Program review of the Texas Agreement State Program in 2018. 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Final IMPEP Special Review Report Page 2 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of a special review of the Texas Agreement State 

Program. The review was conducted April 4–5, 2016, by a team of technical staff 

members (review team) from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The review 

team visited the Office of Waste in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) in Austin, Texas, to review performance assessment modeling and related 

TCEQ licensing documentation associated with the disposal of depleted uranium. The 

review was conducted in accordance with the “Implementation of the Integrated 

Materials Performance Evaluation Program and Rescission of Final General Statement 

of Policy,” published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1997, and the NRC 

Management Directive 5.6, “Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program 

(IMPEP),” dated February 26, 2004. Specifically, the special review focused on the 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions sub-element under the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program non-common performance indicator. 

a. Basis for the Special Review 

In March 2015, TCEQ invited the NRC to perform a review of a performance 

assessment model developed by Waste Control Specialists (WCS) for the evaluation of 

LLRW disposal. In the resulting “peer review,” which was performed in June 2015, the 

NRC evaluated the performance assessment model in order to provide technical and 

regulatory guidance to TCEQ with respect to its licensing process. TCEQ acknowledged 

the experience of NRC staff and was interested in NRC staff insights relative to TCEQ’s 

licensing process. From the peer review, the team identified concerns with the model 

and its use in an August 2014 licensing action for the disposal of depleted uranium. In 

coordination with TCEQ, the review team planned to evaluate the depleted uranium 

disposal licensing action as a “special review” during the IMPEP periodic meeting with 

Texas (TCEQ and Department of State Health Services) planned for February 2016. In 

December 2015, the TCEQ staff requested a delay in the special review due to a 

competing priority. As a result, the special review was performed in April 2016. 

b. Purpose of the Review 

To evaluate TCEQ’s licensing process for reviewing depleted uranium disposal including 

the basis for granting a license amendment to dispose of depleted uranium, the 

associated performance assessment model for such disposal, procedures and guidance 

related to the use of the performance assessment model, and resolution of comments 

from the June 2015 peer review. 

2.0 LLRW DISPOSAL PROGRAM: TECHNICAL QUALITY OF LICENSING ACTIONS 

The objective of this special review was to evaluate TCEQ’s licensing process related to 

the August 2014 WCS license amendment to dispose of depleted uranium. The review 

team, in coordination with TCEQ management, determined that the TCEQ’s licensing 

process for the disposal of depleted uranium, including the performance assessment 

model for depleted uranium disposal, would be evaluated in a special review in 

accordance with Section V.A.4. of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety Safeguards 

Procedure SA-100 “Implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation 

Program (IMPEP).” The review was conducted under the IMPEP LLRW Disposal 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Final IMPEP Special Review Report Page 3 

Program non-common indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions sub-element, to 

determine if TCEQ’s licensing process with respect to depleted uranium disposal is 

adequate to protect public health and safety. 

a. Scope 

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-109, “Reviewing 

the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 

Program,” and evaluated the TCEQ’s performance with respect to the following 

performance indicator objectives in the context of the licensing process for depleted 

uranium disposal: 

 

• Licensing action reviews are thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable 

technical quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed. 

• Applicable LLRW guidance documents are available to reviewers and are followed 

(e.g., pre-licensing guidance, regulatory guides, etc.). 

• Essential elements of license applications have been submitted and these elements 

meet current NRC or Agreement State regulatory guidance for describing the 

isotopes and quantities used, qualifications of authorized users, facilities, equipment, 

locations of use, operating and emergency procedures, and any other requirements 

necessary to ensure an adequate basis for the licensing action (e.g., financial 

assurance, increased controls/Part 37). 

• The basis for major licensing decisions should be fully documented in a safety 

evaluation report. Evaluation of the technical quality of licensing actions should 

include a review of the safety evaluation reports pertaining to these actions. 

Evaluation of the quality of licensing actions should also include an assessment of 

ongoing requests and supporting documents for amendment, modifications, and/or 

renewal of the LLRW license. 

• Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time. 

b. Discussion 

The special review focused on TCEQ’s basis for the decision to amend the WCS license 

for the disposal of depleted uranium, the associated performance assessment model for 

such disposal, including the input parameters used in the performance assessment, and 

procedures and guidance related to the performance assessment model. 

Based on information from TCEQ management and staff, the decision to grant the 

license amendment for the disposal of depleted uranium was informed by a number of 

factors, including the performance assessment model developed by WCS in support of 

the license amendment. However, during the June 2015 peer review, the NRC staff did 

not find sufficient documentation of TCEQ’s decision making process with respect to the 

license amendment. During the April 2016 office visit, the review team determined that 

two factors influenced TCEQ’s licensing decision. First, the WCS disposal site appears 

to have significant disposal margin, which is related to the quantities of depleted uranium 

that are expected to be disposed of at the site, the sites physical features that are 

conducive to such disposal volumes, and disposal site performance is projected to meet 

regulatory objectives. Second, the performance assessment model for the disposal site 

is expected to be revised before significant quantities of depleted uranium will be 

disposed. While the review team did not identify any health and safety concerns with the 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Final IMPEP Special Review Report Page 4 

proposed depleted uranium disposal given the site’s disposal margin, the team noted 

that these two factors should have been explicitly documented in TCEQ’s licensing 

records and appropriate license conditions generated. 

With respect to the performance assessment model, in response to review team 

inquiries during the review, TCEQ staff indicated that TCEQ did not develop any 

guidance for the review of performance assessments and associated documentation; 

however, TCEQ staff stated that they use NRC guidance (e.g., NUREG-1573, “A 

Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 

Facilities: Recommendations of NRC’s Performance Assessment Working Group”, 

NUREG/CR-5542, “Models for Estimation of Service Life of Concrete Barriers in LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal”, and NUREG/CR-6070, “Modeling Approaches for 

Concrete Barriers Used in Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal”) as well as other 

external guidance. The review team did determine, through available documentation of 

some interactions between the TCEQ and the licensee, that an adequate review of the 

performance assessment for the disposal of depleted uranium was conducted. TCEQ 

staff indicated that questions concerning the WCS performance assessment model were 

being resolved primarily through e-mail exchanges and meetings. The review team 

observed that the volume of documentation regarding review activities was considerably 

less than would typically be expected for review of a complex performance assessment 

(e.g., performance assessment conducted for reviews of waste incidental to 

reprocessing under NUREG-1854, “NRC Staff Guidance for Activities Related to U.S. 

Department of Energy Waste Determinations”). In addition, TCEQ staff indicated that 

WCS did not provide an adequate response to all of TCEQ’s comments. In their 

discussions with the review team, TCEQ staff commented that their analysis indicated 

that the unresolved comments were not significant enough to result in a public health 

and safety concern. However, the lack of records indicating a resolution for some of 

TCEQ’s comments is a documentation weakness in TCEQ’s regulatory process. TCEQ 

acknowledged this weakness and indicated that the performance assessment model 

would be updated as additional data and information becomes available (i.e., is provided 

or collected from the licensee). 

During the April 2016 review, the team asked TCEQ staff if individual staff members 

have the ability to exercise the performance assessment model and conduct studies to 

assess model sensitivities to input parameters. TCEQ management indicated that their 

staff has the ability to study the sensitivity of the performance assessment model. In 

addition, when a model file is received from WCS, it is distributed to the relevant 

technical staff for review and analysis. As part of TCEQ’s evaluation, staff will run the 

performance assessment model to verify the licensee’s results and may perform 

additional calculations to verify the ranges of parameters. TCEQ also indicated that the 

results from these independent evaluations of the performance assessment model are 

the technical basis for questions and issues that are provided to WCS for resolution. 

However, based on the review, the team determined that these independent evaluations 

of the performance assessment model and associated results do not appear to be 

documented by TCEQ. 

The review team also evaluated TCEQ’s practice with respect to input parameters for 

the performance assessment model. As indicated in the August 5, 2015, peer review 

letter (NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession 

Number ML15209A311), the review team noted that an earlier version of the 

performance assessment model (v0.205) had a number of input parameters that were 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Final IMPEP Special Review Report Page 5 

clearly identified within the model input file as “placeholder” inputs. TCEQ staff indicated 

that the licensee provides annual updates to its performance assessment modeling, and 

that the licensee was working to resolve the placeholder inputs as the model was being 

revised. However, this version of the performance assessment model appeared to be 

the one used by TCEQ to inform its depleted uranium disposal licensing decision. At the 

April 2016 office visit, the review team observed that there were two performance 

assessment models with the v0.205 designation, one had the word “draft” in bold red 

text on the main menu as well as bold red text for the designating placeholders, while 

the other version did not have the red text, but still identified the model as preliminary 

and many of the inputs as placeholders. In addition, during the April 2016 office visit, 

TCEQ provided several newer versions of the performance assessment model (v0.3, 

v0.4, and v0.51) which contained some new input values, with none of the values 

designated as placeholders. Based on these observations, the review team concluded 

that the documentation related to the performance assessment model was inadequate 

(i.e., ambiguity in terms of the inputs designated as placeholders). TCEQ indicated that 

the issues surrounding the model inputs and their placeholder status were being 

resolved over time as additional information and documentation is included in the model 

by the licensee. Subsequent to the April 2016 review, TCEQ provided the review team 

with a “Timeline for WCS Performance Assessment Development Process” which 

documented the changes between versions v0.1 through v0.6 of the performance 

assessment model.

During the April 2016 review, TCEQ indicated that the WCS disposal license has a 

condition that requires the licensee to perform specific sensitivity analyses when 

requested by TCEQ. However, TCEQ staff do not appear to have a system or process 

in place to track the results of the sensitivity analyses, including assessing the impact of 

input parameter errors or changes to the model. For example, with respect to 

placeholder values, TCEQ does not have a system in place to verify the basis for the 

removal of placeholder designations on the performance assessment model inputs. 

c. Evaluation 

During its April 2016 visit to the TCEQ office, the review team did not identify any 

concerns that would question whether health and safety is protected. The review team 

identified weaknesses associated with TCEQ’s documentation for the license 

amendment associated with depleted uranium disposal. This included lack of 

documentation to support the basis for the licensing decision and the associated 

performance assessment model used to inform the decision. Therefore, the review team 

offered the following recommendations for TCEQ’s consideration. 

1. TCEQ should improve the documentation of its communications with the licensee. 

 Specifically, 

a) Questions about a licensee’s submittal should be developed and provided to 

the licensee in a formal Request for Additional Information format. Upon 

resolution of the questions, the outcomes should be documented. During the 

evaluation process, issues raised by TCEQ, issues self-identified by WCS, 

and the resolution of these issues should be adequately documented. 

b) TCEQ should improve the documentation of the assessment process when 

reviewing new versions of the performance assessment models that are 

provided annually by the licensee. 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Final IMPEP Special Review Report Page 6 

c) TCEQ should improve the documentation of the safety technical bases for the 

disposition of a licensing action. This should be completed in a Safety 

Evaluation Report (SER) or similar document. The SER would allow TCEQ 

to document how the licensee is addressing compliance with regulatory 

requirements and why TCEQ has determined that the information provided by 

the licensee is acceptable. If the licensing action is subject to a hearing or an 

allegation, the associated regulatory process could be followed and 

supported by the contents of the SER. 

2. TCEQ should improve the documentation of its process related to the resolution of 

placeholder inputs in the performance assessment models. TCEQ should document 

how placeholder inputs have been removed along with suitable justification. 

3. TCEQ should have a documented process to track and identify both the technical 

analyses upon which a regulatory decision has been made and the significance of 

errors or changes that may be identified in the supporting performance assessment 

model. Resolution of significant errors or changes should be documented and in the 

case of errors, appropriate corrective actions taken. 

3.0 SUMMARY 

The review team conducted a special review of TCEQ’s licensing process for reviewing 

depleted uranium disposal including the basis for granting a license amendment to 

dispose of depleted uranium, the associated performance assessment model for such 

disposal, and procedures and guidance related to the use of the performance 

assessment model. This review was conducted under IMPEP non-common 

performance indicator Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, sub-element 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. 

The review team concluded that the site characteristics provide adequate margin to 

protect public health and safety. The review team provided some recommendations for 

improvement with regard to TCEQ’s documentation of this complex licensing action and 

corresponding decision making process. The review team recommended, and the MRB 

agreed, that the NRC staff will follow up with TCEQ on the improvements with 

documentation at the next IMPEP review of the Texas Agreement State Program in 

2018.