UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

August 3, 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, Deputy Director 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards 

David C. Lew, Deputy 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: JUNE 30, 2016 ARIZONA 

 MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING 

 

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

June 30, 2016, for the Arizona Agreement State program. If you have comments or questions, 

please contact me at (301) 415-0694. 

Enclosure: 

MRB Meeting Minutes 

cc: Jack Priest, MA 

 Organization of Agreement States 

 Liaison to the MRB 
Management Review Board Members 

Distribution: DCD (SP08) 

RidsEdoMailCenter 

MSampson, OEDO 

RidsOgcMailCenter 

JOlmstead, OGC 

RidsNmssOd 

DCollins, MSTR 

PHenderson, MSTR 

RidsRgn4MailCenter 

BParker, RIII 

RErickson, RSAO/RIV 

TJackson, RI 

TKruse, MN 

PMichalak, MSTR 

State of AZ 

OAS Board 

ML16216A067 

OFFICE NMSS/MSTR 

NAME LDimmick 

w/edits

DATE 08/03/16 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF ARIZONA 

June 30, 2016 

The attendees were as follows: 

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

Glenn Tracy, MRB Chair, OEDO Brian Goretzki, AZ 

Adam Gendleman, MRB Member, OGC Dan Collins, NMSS 

Scott Moore, MRB Member, NMSS Lisa Dimmick, NMSS 

Bryan Parker, Team Member, Region III Julian Sessoms, NMSS 

Sara Forster, Region III Jim Lynch, Region III 

Dennis O’Dowd, Region III John Miller, Region I 

Mark Andrews, TN David Crowley, NC 

Gehan Flanders, TCEQ Tony Gonzalez, TCEQ 

David Stradinger, ND Asfaw Fenta, VA 

Chris Myers, TX 

 

By videoconference: 

Dave Lew, MRB Member, Region I Randy Erickson, Team Member, Region IV 

Mark Shaffer, Region IV 

By telephone: 

Jack Priest, MRB Member, MA, OAS Jerry Perkins, AZ 

Duncan White, NMSS Joe O’Hara, NMSS 

Kathy Modes, NMSS Cindy Flannery, NMSS 

Lizette Roldan-Otero, NMSS 

 

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. Ms. Dimmick 

then transferred the lead to Mr. Glenn Tracy, Chair of the MRB. Introductions of the 

attendees were conducted. 

2. Arizona IMPEP Review. Mr. Bryan Parker, Team Leader, led the presentation of the 

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

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

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

staff members from the NRC and the State of Minnesota during the period of 

March 28–April 1, 2016. A draft report was issued to Arizona for factual comment on May 

2, 2016. Arizona responded to the review team’s findings by letter dated June 1, 2016. 

Mr. Parker reported that the team found the Arizona Agreement State Program 

satisfactory for all six performance indicators reviewed. The team made no new 

recommendations and there were no previous recommendations from the 2012 IMPEP. 

Overall the team recommended that the Arizona Agreement State Program be found 

adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with the NRC’s program. 

 
Arizona MRB Meeting Minutes Page 2 

3. Performance Indicators. 

Mr. Parker presented the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and 

Training which was reviewed by Randy Erickson. His presentation corresponded to 

Section 3.1 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The Arizona Agreement State Program is 

managed by the Radiation Regulatory Agency (Agency) located within the Department of 

Natural Resources. The Agency Director reports to the Governor’s Office. The review 

team recommended to the MRB that the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be 

found satisfactory. In making that determination, the review team found that there are 4.5 

full-time equivalents assigned to the radioactive materials program, with two current 

vacancies. During the review period, no new hires were made and no staff left the 

Agency. The review team noted that two long-term inspectors are planning to retire later 

in 2016. The Agency is exploring options to hire replacement staff. A training and 

qualification manual compatible to Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1248, “Formal 

Qualifications Program for Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs.” is in place and ready to be implemented for new hires. The MRB discussed 

the long standing vacancies and planned retirements. In responding to the MRB’s 

questions, Arizona indicated that the number of Arizona licensees has been fairly stable 

with no expected increases or decreases. There are no backlogs in materials licensing or 

inspection activities. In addition the Agency is planning to double encumber staff for the 

planned retirements. The MRB agreed that Arizona’s performance met the criteria for a 

“satisfactory” rating for this indicator. 

 

Mr. Parker presented the common performance indicator, Status of Materials Inspection 

Program which was reviewed by Todd Jackson. His presentation corresponded to 

Section 3.2 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The review team recommended to the 

MRB that the indicator, Status of the Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory. 

In making that determination, the review team found that the Agency conducted 217 

higher priority inspections during the review period with only one inspection conducted 

overdue. No inspection findings were conveyed to the licensee beyond the 30 day goal. 

The Agency inspected more than 20 percent of reciprocity licensees during each year of 

the review period. The MRB agreed that Arizona’s performance met the criteria for a 

“satisfactory” rating for this indicator. 

Mr. Parker presented the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of 

Inspections which was reviewed by Todd Jackson. His presentation corresponded to 

Section 3.3 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The review team recommended to the 

MRB that the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory. In making 

that determination, the review team reviewed 17 of the Agency’s inspection files, and 

accompanied 3 inspectors to evaluate their work. The review team found that inspection 

reports were thorough and complete, with sufficient documentation to ensure that a 

licensee’s performance with respect to health and safety was acceptable. The review 

team also noted that the Agency maintains an adequate supply of appropriately calibrated 

survey instruments to support the inspection program, as well as to respond to radioactive 

materials incidents and emergency conditions. The MRB agreed that Arizona’s 

performance met the criteria for a “satisfactory” rating for this indicator. 
Arizona MRB Meeting Minutes Page 3 

Mr. Parker presented the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of 

Licensing Actions which was reviewed by Mr. Tyler Kruse. His presentation 

corresponded to Section 3.4 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The review team 

recommended to the MRB that the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be 

found satisfactory. In making that determination, the review team reviewed 23 of the 

Agency’s licensing actions including new licenses, amendments and terminations and 

found them to be thorough, complete, consistent, and of high quality. About 1531 actions 

were completed during the review period. Current guidance is used for all licensing 

actions. Pre-licensing guidance is applied to all new licenses which includes site visits. 

The MRB agreed that Arizona’s performance met the criteria for a “satisfactory” rating for 

this indicator. 

 

Mr. Parker 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 review team recommended to the MRB that 

the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory. 

In making that determination, the review team reviewed the casework for all three 

allegations received during the review period. The team found the Agency to be 

responsive, taking prompt and appropriate action. Documentation was thorough and 

complete, and allegations were closed appropriately. Concerned individuals’ identities 

were properly protected. With regard to incidents, during the review period, 100 incidents 

were reported to Arizona. The review team evaluated 18 of the 72 radioactive materials 

incidents, 30 of which were reportable to the NRC. The Agency dispatched inspectors for 

onsite follow-up of the cases reviewed as appropriate. The MRB agreed that Arizona’s 

performance met the criteria for a “satisfactory” rating for this indicator. 

Mr. Parker presented the non-common performance indicator, Compatibility 

Requirements which was reviewed by Randy Erickson. His presentation corresponded to 

Section 4.1 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The review team recommended to the 

MRB that the indicator, Compatibility Requirements, be found satisfactory. In making that 

determination, the review team reviewed the status of regulations required to be adopted 

by Arizona under the Commission’s adequacy and compatibility policy, and verified the 

adoption of regulations as required. Arizona uses Orders or legally binding requirements 

such as license conditions as appropriate. The Arizona regulatory process typically takes 

1 to 3 years to complete, which includes review and public comment. There are currently 

no overdue amendments due for adoption. Although there have been issues in this area 

in the past regarding timely adoption of regulations, the review team noted significant 

progress during this review period, resulting in the recommendation of satisfactory. The 

MRB discussed process changes that occurred between the 2012 and 2016 IMPEP 

reviews as well as the differences in the 2012 and 2016 moratoriums on regulation 

development in Arizona. In responding to the MRB’s questions, Arizona indicated that the 

current moratorium allows exemptions and the Agency has been able to use the 

exemptions to promulgate regulation amendments. The MRB agreed that Arizona’s 

performance met the criteria for a “satisfactory” rating for this indicator. 

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

and the MRB agreed, that the Arizona Agreement State Program be found adequate to 
Arizona MRB Meeting Minutes Page 4 

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

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

four years with a periodic meeting mid-cycle. The final IMPEP report for Arizona can be 

found in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System suing the 

Accession Number ML16188A002. 

 

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

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