July 10, 2002

Mr. T. Pearce O’Kelley, Chief

Bureau of Radiological Health

Health Regulation

Department of Health and Environmental Control

2600 Bull Street

Columbia, SC 29201 

Dear Mr. O’Kelley:

A periodic meeting with South Carolina was held on June 11, 2002. 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 and Mr. Alvin Henry from the NRC's Office

of State and Tribal Programs, and me. Specific topics and issues of importance discussed at

the meeting included program strengths, staffing and training, performance of licensing and

inspection activities, reporting of events, and the updating of regulations for compatibility.

As we discussed during the meeting, we also met with Mr. Henry J. Porter, Assistant Director,

Division of Hazardous, Infectious, and Radioactive Waste Management, during the morning of 

June 11, 2002. The enclosed meeting summary includes our discussions with both

organizations and 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. Porter 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. 

Sincerely,

/RA/

Richard L. Woodruff

Regional State Agreement Officer

Enclosure: As stated

cc w/encl:

R. Trojanowski, RII

L. Rakovan, STP
Distribution w/encl:

D. Collins, RII

P. Lohaus, STP

K. Schneider, STP

OFFICE RII:DNMS

SIGNATURE DMC 7/10/02

NAME DCollins

DATE 7/ /2002 7/ /2002 7/ /2002 7/ /2002 7/ /2002 7/ /2002 7/ /2002

E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML021910553.wpd
Enclosure

AGREEMENT STATE PERIODIC MEETING SUMMARY FOR SOUTH CAROLINA

BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH and RADIOACTIVE WASTE SECTION

DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 2002

ATTENDEES:

NRC

Richard L. Woodruff, RSAO, Region II

Lance J. Rakovan, ASPO, STP

Alvin Henry, Rotational Assignment, STP

STATE

Pearce O’Kelley, Chief, Bureau of Radiological Health (BRH)

James K. Peterson, Director, Radioactive Materials Division, BRH

John T. Litton, Director, Division of Hazardous, Infectious and Radioactive Waste 

Management ( abbreviated, RWM)

Henry J. Porter, Assistant Director, (RWM)

Rodney Wingard, Manager, Radioactive Waste Section, (RWM) 

DISCUSSION:

A meeting was held with the RWM representatives during the morning of June 11, 2002, and

with the BRH representatives during the afternoon of June 11, 2002. During the meetings, the

topics listed in NRC letters dated April 30, 2002, to Mr. Porter, and to Mr. O’Kelley were

discussed. Details for each area are discussed below. 

Action on Previous Review Findings

The previous review (IMPEP) was conducted on July 12-16, 1999. During this review, three

recommendations were made to the State as follows:

1. The review team recommends that the State provide training to technical personnel,

either by formal course work or equivalent, in the areas of medical brachytherapy and

irradiator technology. (Section 3.3)

Status: One BRH person has completed the course on Teletherapy and Brachytherapy,

and another BRH person has completed the Irradiator Technology course. We

recommend this item be closed.

2. The review team recommends that the State revise their incident and allegation

procedures to incorporate appropriate elements following NRC guidance documents. 

(Section 3.5)

Status: The BRH revised their Incident and allegation procedures following the review

and a copy was provided to the NRC at the time of the Management Review Board

meeting held on October 6, 1999. We recommend this item be closed.
2

Enclosure

3. The review team recommends that the State obtain copies of the engineering drawings

for the SC-0679-D-101-S registered device, and review the drawings for accuracy with

the original application, and maintain them in their files. (Section 4.2.1)

Status: The BRH managers related during the meeting that copies of the engineering

drawings for the SC-0679-D-101-S device registry had been obtained and were on file.

We recommend this item be closed.

Program Strengths and/or Weaknesses

In general, both BRH and DWM 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 fully staffed. No

performance type weaknesses were identified by NRC during this meeting. 

The managers identified one area of concern. There have been two cuts in the budget since

the IMPEP review. The reductions have not adversely affected the Radioactive Waste Section 

but has had considerable affect on the operations of the Bureau of Radiological Health since

most of the Bureau’s funds are appropriated by the legislature. 

The BRH managers project that there will be no loss of staffing in the materials area, that any

staffing losses will be absorbed in other areas of the program. Currently, the Bureau staffing

level is down by four positions. The Bureau will have monies for in-state travel, but monies for

training will be limited, and the Bureau may not be able to replace equipment. The Bureau has

implemented two fee increases but only materials fees can be retained for the materials

program. The State is on a July 1 - June 30 fiscal year. The FY 03 budget will be about 5%

below the current budget.

The Radioactive Waste Section is about 90% supported by fees and has not been affected by

the State budget cuts as the BRH. Managers reported that the State’s Long Term Care fund

had grown to about $100 million, before the State Legislature started borrowing money from it.

Managers reported that $38.5 million was borrowed during the previous FY, and $48.7 million

during this FY. Funds are to be paid back at the rate of $5 million per year beginning next year. 

 

The NRC representatives requested that the managers keep the STP appraised of the actions

taken and the impacts on the agreement program. 

Status of Program and/or Policy Changes

There have been no major changes in the staffing of either the BRH or RWM organizations

since the last review. BRH and RWM both are organized under the Department of Health and

Environmental Control (DHEC). The DHEC organization is divided into two major areas, 

Health Regulation and Environmental Quality Control. BRH is under Health Regulation, and

RWM is under Environmental Quality Control. 
3

Enclosure

BRH has two Divisions , the Division of Radioactive Materials, and the Division of Electronic

Products. The Radioactive Materials Division has six persons and reported that they regulate

approximately 348 specific licensees which includes 116 core licenses, and that the Division is

not experiencing any licensing or inspection backlogs at this time.

The Radioactive Waste Management Section has nine persons that regulate the Barnwell lowlevel radioactive waste site and about 13 other waste related facilities. RWM also reported no

problems with licensing or inspection backlogs and that the Barnwell site was under timely

renewal. Mr. Autry is working part-time as a waste consultant, and is involved with the Barnwell

license renewal. Kevin Strickland is the new Barnwell LLRW site inspector. The waste site

was discussed in general and managers related that the site now accepts waste from all States

(other compacts) through the year 2008. Next FY, the site can accept 70,000 cubic feet of

waste, and there will be no allocation. The cost for disposal is published on the web site. The

RWM reported that the site is continuing to experience good compliance. 

The RWM managers discussed an issue with the bankruptcy of the Starmet licensee, which

has been in bankruptcy since March 26, 2000. Starmet has been cited for numerous violations

over the past couple of years. Two orders have been issued in the past year, prohibiting

Starmet from receiving additional radioactive material because they had reached their

possession limits, to reduce their inventory, clean up the site, and for the remediation of ponds. 

The order also identified that the amount of financial assurance was not adequate to cover the

cost of decommissioning. The assurance fund currently has about $3 million in letters of credit,

and the State estimates that the D & D cost to be $10 to $13 million. This concern was

identified to the State CERCLA program and the EPA. The managers agreed to keep NRC

appraised of any developments with this issue. 

The RWM managers also related that the ATG cask facility was in bankruptcy, but the financial

assurance fund appeared to be adequate. 

Impact of NRC Program Changes

The NRC representatives discussed NRC program changes that could impact the State, such

as the National Materials Working Group, decommissioning of sites, updating of regulations,

the reporting of events, self assessments, and the next IMPEP projected for 2003. The

Region II listing for Radiation Control Program Officials was reviewed for accuracy and

telephone numbers were updated.

Status of Allegations and Allegations Previously Referred

The NRC allegation program was discussed in general with the State representatives. The

BRH and the RWM related that there had been no allegations since the previous review, and 

that allegations are processed on a case-by-case basis, and that follow ups were conducted as

needed to close out the issue. NRC representatives noted that there had been only two

allegations referred to the State by NRC since the last review, one to the RWM and one to the

Health Hazards Evaluation office.
4

Enclosure

Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) Reporting

A general discussion was held with BRH and RWM concerning the NMED reporting system. 

Both organizations have persons trained in the reporting system and indicated that events are

being reported as they occur, and no problems or issues were identified with the reporting

system. RWM staff work with the BRH staff on the reporting of events. 

Prior to the meeting, NRC representatives printed a listing of all events (6) reported by South

Carolina since the last review including the event details, and no issues were identified.

Compatibility of State Regulations

South Carolina is unique in that regulations that are required for compatibility can be adopted

administratively, and without State legislative 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 RWM 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 a concurrence system for

approval of draft regulations.

The latest chronology of amendments as listed on the State Regulation Status (SRS) tracking

system was provided to both the BRH and RWM, and the adoption of regulations was

discussed. The State is up to date on their regulation adoption.

Schedule for the Next IMPEP Review

Both offices were informed of the next review under the IMPEP procedure scheduled for FY

2003. The offices were also advised of the advantages of conducting a self assessment

utilizing the IMPEP procedure. NRC representatives noted the excellent participation of the

Radioactive Materials Division manager on the IMPEP teams.

CONCLUSIONS:

Conclusion #1: Both BRH and DWM 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. Actions on previous comments have been taken and are being implemented.

No additional action is necessary.
5

Enclosure

Conclusion #2: STP and the Regional State Agreements Officer need to monitor the actions

taken by BRH with regard to the anticipated reduction of their budget and the effects on the

program.

No action needed at this time, the BRH Chief will keep NRC appraised of the programmatic

impacts of the reduction efforts. 

Conclusion #3: The State agreed to keep NRC informed on the status of the Starmet issue.