MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF COLORADO

JUNE 26, 2018

The attendees were as follows:

In person at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland:

Dan Dorman, MRB Chair, OEDO Lance Rakovan, Team Leader, NMSS

Marc Dapas, MRB Member, NMSS Paul Michalak, NMSS

Mary Spencer, MRB Member, OGC

By videoconference:

Randy Erickson, Team Member, Region IV Linda Howell, Region IV

By telephone:

Darrell Roberts, MRB Member, Region III Gehan Flanders, Team Member, TX

Gonzalo Perez, MRB Member, CA, OAS Ron Parsons, Team Member, TN

Frank Tran, Team Member, Region III Sherrie Flaherty, Team Member, MN

Lizette Roldan-Otero, Team Member, NMSS Joe O’Hara, NMSS

Jennifer Opila, CO Shiya Wang, CO

Matt Gift, CO Phil Peterson, CO

James Jarvis, CO Kathryn Mote, CO

Tim Thorvaldson, CO Ramon Li, CO

Peter Rottenborn, CO Derek Bailey, CO

Cheri Hall, CO Mark Dater, CO

1. Convention. Mr. Lance Rakovan convened the meeting at approximately 1:00 p.m. (ET). 

He noted that this Management Review Board (MRB) meeting was open to the public. 

Introductions of the attendees were conducted.

2. Colorado IMPEP Review. Mr. Lance Rakovan, Team Leader, led the presentation of the 

Colorado Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review results 

to the MRB. He summarized the review and the team’s findings for the indicators 

reviewed. The on-site review was conducted by a team composed of technical staff 

members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the States of 

Minnesota, Tennessee, and Texas during the period of April 9-13, 2018. A draft report 

was issued to Colorado for factual comment on May 9, 2018. Mr. Rakovan reported that 

the team found Colorado’ performance was satisfactory for all indicators reviewed.

3. Performance Indicators. 

a) Mr. Rakovan reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, 

Technical Staffing and Training. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 

of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and Colorado

representatives briefly discussed the status of the staff hired during the review 

period and the impact of vacancies on the Agreement State Program.
Colorado MRB Meeting Minutes Page 2

The team found Colorado’s performance with respect to this indicator to be 

“satisfactory” and the MRB agreed. 

b) Ms. Sherrie Flaherty reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, 

Status of Materials Inspection Program. Her presentation corresponded to 

Section 3.2 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and 

Colorado representatives briefly discussed the single late initial inspection 

completed during the review period. 

The team found Colorado’s performance with respect to this indicator to be 

“satisfactory” and the MRB agreed. 

c) Ms. Flaherty reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, 

Technical Quality of Inspections. Her presentation corresponded to Section 

3.3 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and Colorado

representatives discussed compliance based verses performance based 

inspections, conducting announced verses un-announced inspections, and 

geographic issues.

The team found Colorado’s performance with respect to this indicator to be 

“satisfactory” and the MRB agreed. 

d) Mr. Frank Tran reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. His presentation corresponded to 

Section 3.4 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and 

Colorado representatives discussed the program’s peer review process for 

license renewals, its use of Web-Based Licensing, and implementation of Part 

37.

The team found Colorado’s performance with respect to this indicator to be 

“satisfactory” and the MRB agreed. 

e) Mr. Randy Erickson reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities. His presentation 

corresponded to Section 3.5 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the 

team, and Colorado representatives discussed incidents of “high risk” and 

protecting allegers’ identities.

The team found Colorado’s performance with respect to this indicator to be 

“satisfactory” and the MRB agreed. 

f) Mr. Rakovan reviewed and presented the non-common performance indicator, 

Compatibility Requirements. His presentation corresponded to Section 4.1 of 

the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and Colorado

representatives discussed the State’s regulation adoption process, including 

stakeholder involvement. 
Colorado MRB Meeting Minutes Page 3

The team found Colorado’s performance with respect to this indicator to be 

“satisfactory” and the MRB agreed. 

g) Mr. Ron Parsons reviewed the non-common performance indicator, Sealed 

Source and Device Evaluation Program. His presentation corresponded to 

Section 4.2 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and 

Colorado representatives discussed the training and qualification of staff, 

including the status of the single staffer who was qualified during the review 

period. Attendees also discussed the number of registrants in Colorado. 

Colorado representatives noted that they would get alternate technical 

assistance if the State were to receive a complex SS&D.

The team found Colorado’s performance with respect to this indicator to be 

“satisfactory” and the MRB agreed. 

h) Ms. Gehan Flanders reviewed and presented the non-common performance 

indicator, Uranium Recovery Program. Her presentation corresponded to 

Section 4.4 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and 

Colorado representatives discussed staffer responsible for uranium-related 

activities and the language in the report involving the sharing of inspection results 

not being consistent with the radiation control act.

The team found Colorado’s performance with respect to this indicator to be 

“satisfactory” and the MRB agreed. 

4. MRB Consultation/Comments on Issuance of Report. The team recommended, and the 

MRB agreed, that the Colorado Agreement State Program be found adequate to protect 

public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. The team

recommended that the next IMPEP review take place in approximately 4 years with a 

periodic meeting in approximately 2 years. Colorado representatives noted that only 

indicator found less than satisfactory during this and the previous review was 

“Compatibility Requirements” and requested that, given the circumstances for that rating 

were out of control of the Colorado Agreement State Program, the next IMPEP review 

be in 5 years with a periodic meeting in approximately 2.5 years. 

The MRB directed staff to provide an analysis of situations where the 1-year extension 

was granted and to provide that information for the MRB to make a final decision on the 

timing of the next IMPEP review and periodic meeting. Subsequent to the MRB 

meeting, the MRB directed that the next IMPEP review be held in approximately 4 years 

and that a periodic meeting be held in approximately 1 year. The final report may be 

found in the ADAMS using the Accession Number ML18180A318.

5. Precedents/Lessons Learned. Mr. Rakovan noted that he would be reaching out to 

Colorado representatives to collect lessons learned involving conducting IMPEP reviews 

for “fully electronic” programs.
Colorado MRB Meeting Minutes Page 4

6. Comments from Members of the Public. None

7. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:25 p.m. (ET)