1

Management Review Board (MRB): Roles and Responsibilities

for the OAS Liaison

Richmond, Virginia

August 22, 2011

2

AGENDA• Integrated Materials Performance

Evaluation Program (IMPEP) Overview• Management Review Board (MRB)

Overview• MRB Decision Making• Agreement State Perspective• Shared Experiences• Questions and Answers

OBJECTIVE

• To provide OAS Program Directors with the knowledge and tools necessary for service on a Management Review Board

3

REFERENCES• Management Directive 5.6,

“Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)”

• SA-100, “Implementation of IMPEP”• SA-106, “The Management Review

Board”• http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/procedures.html

4

IMPEP OVERVIEW

Performan

ce Indicators

Recommendations

Ratings Findings

IMPEP

5

COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

• Technical Staffing and Training• Status of Materials Inspection Program• Technical Quality of Inspections• Technical Quality of Licensing Actions• Technical Quality of Incident and

Allegation Activities6

NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS• Compatibility Requirements• Sealed Source and Device Evaluation

Program• Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Program• Uranium Recovery Program

7

RECOMMENDATIONS• Comments that relate directly to program

performance (weaknesses) • Intended to be constructive and promote

improvement• Should focus on the underlying cause of

a weakness• Performance-based

8

GOOD PRACTICES• Innovative and effective practices that

might be used to enhance aspects of other programs

• Only identified as a Good Practice during first encounter

9

INDICATOR RATINGS• Satisfactory• Satisfactory, but Needs Improvement• Unsatisfactory

10

INDICATOR RATINGS

• Decision process for arriving at an indicator finding is based on the criteria found in:–Management Directive (MD) 5.6

11

PROGRAM FINDINGS: ADEQUACY• Adequate To Protect Public Health

and Safety• Adequate, But Needs Improvement• Inadequate To Protect Public Health

and Safety

12

PROGRAM FINDINGS: COMPATIBILITY

• Compatible• Not Compatible

13

MRB OVERVIEW

Members

Roles

Meeting

Meeting

StructureMRB

14

MRB – WHO IS IT?• Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste,

Research, State, Tribal and Compliance Programs (DEDMRT)

• Office of General Counsel Representative• Director, Office of Federal and State Materials

and Environmental Management Programs (FSME)

• Regional Administrator from an NRC Region• Agreement State Liaison

15

MRB – WHAT DO THEY DO?• Overall assessment of adequacy of

compatibility– IMPEP team’s report– Information provided by Region or State–Need for monitoring, heightened oversight,

or more• IMPEP policy and implementation• Convene to evaluate special reviews

16

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OAS LIAISON• Provide opinion of IMPEP team’s

findings and recommendation• Provide insight on all matters discussed

in MRB meeting• Review all documentation provided to

MRB in advance of the meeting

17

MRB MEETINGS• Attended by:

–MRB members–IMPEP team–State/Regional representative(s)–IMPEP Project Management–Interested NRC staff–Public

18

MRB MEETING STRUCTURE• Indicator-by-indicator discussions

including any revisions/changes to report language, recommendations, ratings, and findings

• Final decision on adequacy and compatibility

• Timing of next IMPEP review • Additional Topics

19

MRB DECISION MAKING

Next IMPEP &

Periodic

Monitoring

Heightened Oversight Prob

ation

Decision Making

20

Next IMPEP & Periodic• IMPEP cycle is typically 4 years• Periodics are mid-cycle reviews• IMPEP cycle may be increased or

decreased depending on performance• Periodic frequency may be increased or

decreased depending on performance

21

MONITORING

• An informal process to maintain increased communications with a Program

• Can be considered based on IMPEP review or periodic meeting results

• Requires an action plan and quarterly conference calls

22

HEIGHTENED OVERSIGHT• A formal process to maintain increased

communications and to assess Program performance improvements

• Can be considered based on IMPEP review or periodic meeting results

• Requires a Program Improvement Plan, bimonthly calls, and onsite follow-up in approximately one year

23

PROBATION• A very formal process requiring

Commission approval• Similar to Heightened Oversight, but

includes:–Notification to State Governor–Notification to State’s Congressional

delegation–Publication in Federal Register–Press Release 24

SPECIAL MRB• Scheduled on as needed basis• Mechanism to communicate periodic

meeting results to senior management–Periodic meetings serve as forums to

exchange information about program status and performance

• Special MRB can direct a program toward or discontinue Monitoring and Heightened Oversight

25