ML20249C342
| ML20249C342 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/09/1998 |
| From: | Woodruff R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Autry V SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20249C336 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-98-236 NUDOCS 9806290086 | |
| Download: ML20249C342 (7) | |
Text
,
e F.
l a
UNITED STATES l
/pa ne4 %,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
I
/
REGION il W
8 D"
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER I
t 61 FORSYTH STREET. SW. SUITE 23T85 h;
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-3415
'3 l
January 9, 1998 a
co Mr. Virgil Autry, Director Division of Radioactive Waste Management.
Department of Health and Environmental Control l
2600 Bull Street Columbia. SC 29201 3
1
Dear Mr. Autry:
)
s This year's annual meeting with the South Carolina Division of Radioactive Waste Management (DRWM) was held on December 17.1997. The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the status of South Carolina's Agreement State program. The NRC was represented by Mr.-Lance J. Rakovan from the NRC's Office of State Programs, and myself.
Specific topics and issues of importance discussed at the meeting included program strengths, staffing and training. performance of licensing and inspection activities, and the updating of regulations for compatibility.
I l
As we discussed during the meeting, we also met with Mr. Max K. Batavia.
Chief. Bureau of Radiological Health (BRH) on December 16, 1997.
The enclosed l
annual meeting summary includes our discussions with both BRH and DRWM. and 1
1 documents specific actions that will be taken as a result of the meeting.
A copy of this meeting summary is also being provided under separate cover to Mr. Batavia for his review.
If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me at 404-562-4704, or e-mail to rlw@nrc. gov _to discuss your
- concerns, i
Sincerely.
j
}[f k$5Y,'MbE.
'kichard L. Woodruff ~
Regional State Agreement Officer l
Enclosure:
Annual Meeting Summary cc w/ encl:
R. E. Trojanowski. RII L. J. Rakovan. OSP t
1 9806290086 990624 PDR FOIA PICKETT 98-236 PDR l{j t
AGREEMENT STATE ANNUAL MEETING
SUMMARY
FOR SOUTH CAROLINA BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH (BRH)..AND THE DIVISION OF RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (DRWM)
DATES OF MEETING:
December 16-17. 1997 ATTENDEES:
NRC Richard L. Woodruff. RSA0. Region II Lance J. Rakovan. ASPO. OSP STATE Max K. Batavia. Chief. BRH James K. Peterson. Director. Materials Program. BRH Virgil R. Autry. Director. DRWM Henry J. Porter. Section Manager. DRWM DISCUSSION:
A meeting was held with the BRH representatives on December 16. 1997, and with the DRWM representatives on December 17, 1997.
During the meetings, the topics listed in NRC letters dated October 27, 1997, to Mr. Batavia, and to Mr. Autry were discussed.
Details for each area are discussed below.
Action on Previous Review Findinas There have been no IMPEP reviews of the program.
The previous review was conducted on March 24, 1995.
During this review. one recommendation was made to the BRH concerning needed revisions to the inspection report forms for medical inspections and for the industrial radiography inspections. The BRH updated the medical report forms and the industrial radiography report forms, and the NRC closed out this recommendation by letter in May of 1996.
No recommendations were made concerning the DRWM program during the previous review.
Proaram Strenaths and/or Weaknesses In general. both BRH and DRWM representatives related that their programs were strong with adequate support from the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). legislative support, stable sources of funding. legal support, good equipment, and well trained staff.
No performance type weaknesses were identified by NRC during this meeting.
Status of Proaram and/or Policy Chanaes There have been no changes in the structure of the BRH or DRWM organizations since the last review.
The DHEC organization is divided into two major areas.
Health Services and Environmental Quality Control.
BRH is under the Health Enclosure
1 2
' Services area, and DRWM is under the Environmental Quality Control area.
BRH reported that one additional staff member will be hired for the Radioactive Materials Section for a total of six persons.
The DRWM has hired one additional engineer for a total of seven technical staff members.
The BRH reported that they regulate approximately 300 specific licensees, and that the Bureau is not experiencing any licensing or inspection backlogs. The BRH also reported that considerable staff effort has been utilized for the renewal of the Interstate Nuclear Services laundry facility, that the license renewal amendment had been appealed, and that a hearing would be held, but the hearing date had not been established.
The BRH representatives expressed an interest in obtaining the NUREG-1556 series documents in an electronic format.
The DRWM regulates the Barnwell low-level radioactive waste site and about 15 other waste related facilities, and the DRWM also reported no problems with
' licensing'or inspection backlogs. The DRWM commented on the status of the Barnwell facility and the actions being taken by the licensee concerning monitoring and other on-going projects.
Imoact of NRC Procram Chanaes The NRC representatives discussed NRC program changes that could impact the State, such as the 10 CFR Part 35 revision. the termination of the State environmental monitoring contracts. and the current status of NRC's policies involving decommissioning of formerly licensed sites and NRC's training program.
In response to the discussions. both BRH and DRWM related that they would continue to provide training for their staffs to the extent possible.
The State had just recently been informed of the environmental monitoring contract issue, and the impact had not been fully assessed.
Status of Alle0ations Previousiv Referred The NRC allegation program was discussed in general with the State representatives.
The BRH related that their agency had very few allegations.
that allegations were processed on a case-by-case basis, and that follow ups were conducted as needed.
One open allegation referred to BRH from Region 11 in 1997 was discussed in detail including plans for closing out the allegation.
There have been no allegations referred to the DRWM since the previous review.
The DRWM related that their agency treats and processes allegations on a case-by-case basis, and that actions are taken as needed to close out the issue.
\\
e 3
Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) Reportino-A general discussion was held with each agency concerning the NMED reporting
-system.
In response. BRH related that they appreciated the training efforts
- provided by the AEOD's office concerning the NMED system, and that'BRH was utilizing the reporting system.
BRH also related that the reporting was very time consuming, and that the system's information (reports) had not been
-utilized to any great extent.
The DRWM related that any events from their licensees would be reported to the BRH for entry into the 'NMED system.
DRWM personnel received training on the NMED system as provided by Mr. Sam Pettijon.during a joint training session in the BRH. The issues related to problems associated with waste shipments are maintained separately and tracked under the Barnwell license, or processed under the DRWM waste permittee system, as appropriate.
Compatibility of State Regulations The new. compatibility policy was discussed in general with each office.
South Carolina.is. unique in that regulations that are required for compatibility can be adopted administratively..and without State ~1egislative approval. Other regulations such as fees must be approved by the' legislature.
This State policy-has allowed the agreement program to quickly adopt regulations needed for compatibility and thus remain compatible over the years.
The BRH and the DRWM have an inter-departmental agreement that addresses policies and functions of the respective offices, including the regulation adoption process.
The BRH takes the lead for drafting regulations for the
' agreement program except for'those regulations that are specific to radioactive waste type facilities.
Both offices utilize e concurrence system I
for. approval of draft regulations.
BRH representatives stated that all current NRC regulations needed for Compatibility-(within the three year time frame) have been adopted and implemented.
The BRH is currently drafting all-other regulations that will be needed for compatibility within the next three years. and these proposed regulations will be sent to DRWM for comment and concurrence as part of the administrative adoption process.
The NRC representatives discussed the Office
- of State Programs (DSP) procedure for reviewing proposed State regulations.
and the recent OSP actions to complete the reviews of State equivalents to 10 CFR Part~20. The BRH representatives related that any identified changes needed by the State for compatibility with Part 20 regulations would be
-drafted and proposed in conjunction with the changes currently being drafted for' adoption.
Both BRH and DRWM requested updated copies of the current chronology of amendments needed for compatibility.
Both offices also ex]ressed the need for i
- the chronology to identify each regulation by the Federal Register (FR)
Notice. to help identify each definition. and part(s) affected by the rule change.
L
\\
l
u,*
si I
4 5'chedule for the Next' IMPEP Review;
~
Both offices were informed of the next review under the IMPEP procedure scheduled for FY 1999. The IMPEP process was discussed and electronic copies of the current (FY.1998) policies and procedures were provided to the L
' respective offices. The offices were also advised of the merits of providing
' trained technical aersonnel for participation on the IMPEP teams, and the IMPEP training. T1e offices were also advised of the' advantages of conducting Ja;self assessment utilizing the IMPEP procedure.
CONCLUSIONS:
Conclusion #1)
Both BRH and DRWM have well trained experienced staff, and.
their programs by all indications have the resources to be on target. adequate and compatible under.the IMPEP criteria.
No action is necessary.
Conclusion #2:
The BRH representatives requested an electronic copy of the NUREG-1556 series documents to assist'them in their licensing process.
Action:
The OSP will obtain the NUREG-1556 documents in electronic format and provide to the State via the NRC home page.
l.
L Conclusion #3:
The State requested an updated copy of the chronology of:
l amendments with the entries identified with the federal register notice which L
will assist the State in promulgating compatible regulations.
To assist NRC.
the State needs to provide proposed regulations in accordance with the All Agreement State letter. SP-97-029.-
Action:
OSP needs to provide the State with an updated copy of the chronology of amendments with the FR Notice identification, L
i
)
h L..
.