UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

February 19, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Glenn M. Tracy 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 

Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration, 

 and Human Capital Programs 

Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Mary B. Spencer, Assistant General Counsel 

 for Reactor and Materials Rulemaking 

Office of the General Counsel 

Scott W. Moore, Acting Director 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards 

Daniel H. Dorman, Regional Administrator 

NRC Region I 

FROM: Lisa C. Dimmick, Senior Health Physicist /RA/ 

 Agreement State Programs Branch 

 Division of Material Safety, State, Tribal, 

 and Rulemaking Programs 

 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

SUBJECT: MINUTES: JANUARY 14, 2016 CALIFORNIA 

 MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING 

 

Enclosed are the minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on 

January 14, 2016, for the California Agreement State program. If you have comments or 

questions, please contact me at (301) 415-0694. 

Enclosure: 

MRB Meeting Minutes 

cc: Matthew McKinley, KY 

 Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 
Management Review Board Members 

Distribution: (SP08) 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

JFoster, OEDO 

MSampson, OEDO 

RidsOgcMailCenter 

RidsNmssOd 

PHenderson, NMSS 

DSpackman, NMSS 

PMichalak, NMSS 

LRoldan, NMSS 

RidsRgn4MailCenter 

RErickson, RIV/RSAO 

MHammond, RIV 

MShaffer, RIV 

LHowell, RIV 

RidsRgn1MailCenter 

DJanda, RI 

LBakersmith, FL 

JKelly, TX 

State of CA 

OAS Board 

JWeil, OCA 

ML16042A004 

OFFICE NMSS/MSTR 

NAME LDimmick 

w/edits 

DATE 2/19/16 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF CALIFORNIA 

JANUARY 14, 2016 

The attendees were as follows: 

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

Glenn Tracy, MRB Chair, OEDO Dan Collins, NMSS 

Mary Spencer, MRB Member, OGC Duncan White, NMSS 

Scott Moore, MRB Member, NMSS Paul Michalak, NMSS 

Donna Janda, Team Member, Region I Jack Foster, OEDO 

David Spackman, Team Member, NMSS Stephen Poy, NMSS 

Lisa Dimmick, NMSS Kathy Modes, NMSS 

By videoconference: 

Dan Dorman, MRB Member, Region I Jim Trapp, Region I 

Lizette Roldan-Otero, Team Member, Region IV Monica Ford, Region I 

Michelle Hammond, Team Member, Region IV 

By telephone: 

Mathew McKinley, MRB Liaison, KY, OAS Gonzalo Perez, CA 

Randy Erickson, Team Member, Region IV John Fassel, CA 

Mark Shaffer, Region IV Rob Gregor, CA 

Jason Kelly, Team Member, TX Philip Scott, CA 

Leo Bakersmith, Team Member, FL 

 

1. Convention. Ms. Lisa Dimmick convened the meeting at 1:00 p.m. (ET). She noted that 

this Management Review Board (MRB) meeting was open to the public; no members of 

the public participated in this meeting. Ms. Dimmick then transferred the lead to Mr. Glenn 

Tracy, Chair of the MRB. Introductions of the attendees were conducted. 

2. California IMPEP Review. Ms. Donna Janda, Team Leader, led the presentation of the 

California Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review results to 

the MRB. She summarized the review and the team’s findings for the seven indicators 

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

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

Florida and Texas during the period of October 5-9, 2015. A draft report was issued to 

California for factual comment on November 13, 2015. California responded to the review 

team’s findings by letter dated December 18, 2015. Ms. Janda reported that the team 

found the California Agreement State Program (the Program) satisfactory for all seven 

performance indicators reviewed. The review team made two recommendations for the 

current review in the area of sealed source and device evaluation and recommended 

closing the recommendation on compatibility requirements from the prior review. 

Common Performance Indicators. Ms. Janda reviewed and presented the common 

performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. Her presentation corresponded to 

Section 3.1 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The Program is budgeted for 40 full-time 

equivalents (FTE), which includes management and staff. An additional two FTE are 
CALIFORNIA MRB Meeting Minutes Page 2 

provided by four Regulation Unit staff members who support the Program through 

regulation development. Inspection activities are conducted out of two State regional 

offices and two county offices. The Program has three vacancies, all of which have been 

vacant since July 2015. Over the review period a total of 8 staff left the Program and 10 

were hired. Each of the vacancies was open on average for 6 to 9 months before they 

were filled. 

 

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

“satisfactory.” The MRB agreed that California’s performance met the criteria for a 

“satisfactory” rating for this indicator. 

 

Mr. David Spackman reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, Status 

of Materials Inspection Program. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.2 of the 

proposed final IMPEP report. The review team found that the Program performed 1,003 

Priority 1, 2, 3, and initial inspections during the review period, of which 38 inspections or 

3.8 percent, were conducted overdue. A sampling of 30 inspection reports indicated that 

one inspection report was communicated to the licensee beyond the Program’s goal of 30 

days after the inspection exit. Over the review period, the Program inspected 

one-third of all candidate reciprocity licensees, thus, inspecting greater than 20 percent of 

candidate reciprocity licensees in each calendar year except for 2014. 

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

“satisfactory.” The MRB agreed that California’s performance met the criteria for a 

“satisfactory” rating for this indicator. 

Mr. Leo Bakersmith reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, 

Technical Quality of Inspections. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.3 of the 

proposed final IMPEP report. The team reviewed 32 inspection reports conducted during 

the review period, for 12 of the Program's materials inspectors and covered a sampling of 

the higher priority categories of license types/inspection types, including medical, 

industrial, commercial, academic, research, and service licenses. The review team 

accompanied eight inspectors prior to the onsite review. The inspections were adequate to 

assess radiological health, safety and security. 

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

“satisfactory.” The MRB agreed that California’s performance met the criteria for a 

“satisfactory” rating for this indicator. 

Ms. Lizette Roldan-Otero reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. Her presentation corresponded to Section 3.4 of 

the proposed final IMPEP report. The team reviewed and evaluated 41 licensing actions 

from the review period for 18 of the Program's materials license reviewers that covered a 

sampling of the higher priority categories of license types which included broad scope, 

medical diagnostic and therapy, accelerator, commercial manufacturing and distribution, 

industrial radiography, research and development, academic, nuclear pharmacy, gauges, 

panoramic and self-shielded irradiators, well-logging, service providers, waste brokers, 
CALIFORNIA MRB Meeting Minutes Page 3 

decommissioning actions, financial assurance, and bankruptcies. Licensing action 

reviews were thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality with 

health, safety, and security issues properly addressed. 

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

“satisfactory.” The MRB agreed that California’s performance met the criteria for a 

“satisfactory” rating for this indicator. 

 

Ms. Randy Erickson reviewed and presented the findings regarding 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 review 

team evaluated 20 of 494 incidents reported by the Program. Each event reviewed was 

found to have been properly evaluated to determine the level of response required and the 

investigations were well coordinated and timely. Follow-up actions were performed when 

needed. The review team also reviewed the casework for 12 of 73 allegations received by 

California including 6 of 10 allegations referred by the NRC during the review period. The 

team found the Program to be responsive, taking prompt and appropriate action. 

Documentation was thorough and complete, and allegations were closed timely. 

Concerned individuals identities were properly protected. 

 

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

“satisfactory.” The MRB agreed that California’s performance met the criteria for a 

“satisfactory” rating for this indicator. 

3. Non-Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Spackman reviewed and presented the 

non-common performance indicator, Compatibility Requirements. His presentation 

corresponded to Section 4.1 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The team reviewed the 

State’s legislation and regulations; the Program’s State Regulation Status (SRS) data 

sheet (which documents the program’s progress toward adopting NRC regulatory 

amendments); the previous IMPEP report, Periodic Meeting summary, and Monitoring Call 

summaries; and conducted discussions with staff. 

During the review period, the Program made significant progress towards the timely 

adoption of NRC regulatory amendments. The Program submitted 16 final regulation 

amendments to the NRC for compatibility review, and all of the submitted regulations were 

determined to be compatible. The team reviewed the Program’s implementation of one 

recommendation made during the 2011 IMPEP review which recommended that, “the 

State develop and implement a detailed action plan that fully documents actions, tasks, 

and milestones associated with each regulation package, to better track adoption of 

required regulations in accordance with the current NRC policy on adequacy and 

compatibility.” To address the recommendation, the Program made several changes to 

the process it uses to develop and track regulations amendments. In early 2012, the 

Program began developing rulemaking packages that addressed individual NRC 

amendments instead of developing packages by individual 10 CFR Parts, as they had 

done previously. The Program also developed and implemented a detailed rulemaking 

process flowchart and an NRC amendment adoption tracking chart to track and gauge 
CALIFORNIA MRB Meeting Minutes Page 4 

progress toward regulation adoption. The success of the Program in adopting so many 

regulation amendments during the review period demonstrated the effectiveness of the 

Program’s approach to addressing this recommendation. 

The MRB discussed the two longstanding overdue amendments concerning timeliness in 

decommissioning and radiological criteria for license termination and whether these issues 

created gaps in the National Materials Program. Although California can implement the 

regulations via license conditions or orders when needed, the Program is unable to adopt 

these requirements due to a State court decision. The Program is currently preparing an 

analysis for NRC’s review to demonstrate that the State is implementing compatible 

requirements to meet the essential objectives of these regulations. In addition the MRB 

discussed a known compatibility issue regarding low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) 

disposal requirements where California’s “Radiation Control Law” is more restrictive than 

10 CFR 61.41 regarding releases of radioactivity to the general environment. The State is 

required to adopt an essential identical requirement to NRC’s 10 CFR 61.41. This 

incompatibility was initially noted in an NRC letter to California in 2007. The Program is 

not aware of any prospective applicant for a LLRW disposal facility license in California; 

consequently, California’s more restrictive requirements are not currently in use. 

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

“satisfactory.” The MRB agreed that California’s performance met the criteria for a 

“satisfactory” rating for this indicator. In addition, the MRB agreed to close the 2011 

recommendation. 

Mr. Jason Kelly reviewed and presented the non-common performance indicator, Sealed 

Source and Device Evaluation Program (SS&D). His presentation corresponded to 

Section 4.2 of the proposed final IMPEP report. In evaluating this indicator, the review 

team considered the three sub-elements, including (1) Technical Staffing and Training, (2) 

Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program, and (3) Evaluation of Defects and 

Incidents Regarding SS&Ds. The team reviewed 14 SS&D registries processed during the 

review period, which included a review of the work of 7 of the Program’s SS&D reviewers. 

The review team made two recommendations, one concerning a plan to complete SS&D 

transfers, and the second, implement a procedure for reviewing the implementation of the 

manufacturer/distributor’s quality assurance and quality control program commitments. 

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

“satisfactory.” The MRB agreed that California’s performance met the criteria for a 

“satisfactory” rating for this indicator. In addition, the MRB agreed to open the two SS&D 

recommendations. 

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

and the MRB agreed, that the California Agreement State Program be found adequate to 

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

recommended, and the MRB agreed, to discontinue the period of monitoring. California 

sustained improved performance in the area of rule development. The review team 

recommended, and the MRB agreed, the next IMPEP review take place in approximately 

four years with a periodic meeting mid-cycle. 
CALIFORNIA MRB Meeting Minutes Page 5 

6. Precedents/Lessons Learned. None applicable to this review 

7. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m. (ET)