ML25156A302
| ML25156A302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/08/2025 |
| From: | Eric Michel NRC/RGN-II |
| To: | Shana Helton Division of Fuel Management |
| References | |
| NCP-2025-004 | |
| Download: ML25156A302 (1) | |
Text
NRC FORM 757 (06-2019)
Page 1 of 6 Use ADAMS Template NRC-006 (ML063120159)
NRC FORM 757 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (06-2019)
NRC MD 10.158 NON-CONCURRENCE PROCESS COVER PAGE The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) strives to establish and maintain an environment that encourages all employees to promptly raise concerns and differing views without fear of reprisal and to promote methods for raising concerns that will enhance a strong safety culture and support the agencys mission.
Employees are expected to discuss their views and concerns with their immediate supervisors on a regular, ongoing basis. If informal discussions do not resolve concerns, employees have various mechanisms for expressing and having their concerns and differing views heard and considered by management.
Management Directive (MD) 10.158, NRC Non-Concurrence Process, describes the Non-Concurrence Process (NCP).
The NCP allows employees to document their differing views and concerns early in the decision-making process, have them responded to (if requested), and include them with proposed documents moving through the management approval chain to support the decision-making process.
NRC Form 757, Non-Concurrence Process, is used to document the process.
Section A of the form includes the personal opinions, views, and concerns of a non-concurring NRC employee.
Section B of the form includes the personal opinions and views of the non-concurring employees immediate supervisor.
Section C of the form includes the agencys evaluation of the concerns and the agencys final position and outcome.
NOTE: Content in Sections A and B reflects personal opinions and views and does not represent the official agencys position of the issues, nor official rationale for the agency decision. Section C includes the agencys official position on the facts, issues, and rationale for the final decision.
1.
Was this process discontinued? If so, please indicate the reason and skip questions 2 and 3:
Process was not discontinued 2.
At the completion of the process, the non-concurring employee(s):
Continued to non-concur 3.
For record keeping purposes:
This record has been reviewed and approved for public dissemination
NRC FORM 757 (06-2019)
Page 2 of 6 Use ADAMS Template NRC-006 (ML063120159)
NRC FORM 757 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (06-2019)
NRC MD 10.158 NON-CONCURRENCE PROCESS (Continued) 1.
NCP Tracking Number NCP-2025-004 Date 2025-05-08 Section A - To Be Completed by Non-Concurring Employee 2.
Title of Subject Document Assessment of Fuel Facility Applicants during Construction in IMC 2604 3.
ADAMS Accession Number ML24218A105 4.
Document Signer Shana Helton - DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FUEL MANAGEMENT 5.
Document Signers Office NMSS 6.
Document Signers Email Shana.Helton@nrc.gov 7.
Name of Non-Concurring Employees Eric C Michel - BRANCH CHIEF
- 8.
Non-Concurring Employee Offices Region 2 9.
Employee Emails Eric.Michel@nrc.gov 10.
Non-Concurring Employees Role for the Subject Document Document Contributor 11.
Name of Non-Concurring Employee Supervisors Ravi Penmetsa - DEPUTY DIR, DIV FUEL, RAD SFTY, SEC
- 12.
Non-Concurring Employee Supervisor Offices Region 2 13.
Supervisor Emails Ravi.Penmetsa@nrc.gov
- 14.
I would like my non-concurrence considered and would like a written evaluation in Sections B and C.
15.
When the process is complete, I would like management to determine whether public release of the NCP Form (with or without redactions) is appropriate (Select No if you would like the NCP Form to be non-public):
Yes 16.
Reasons for the Non-Concurrence, Potential Impact on Mission, and the Proposed Alternatives I wanted to take a minute to document my concern that the agency is opting to forego consideration of supplemental inspections for fuels construction applicants in updates to IMC 2604, Licensee Performance Review, and IMC 2694, Fuel Cycle Facility Construction and Pre-Operational Readiness Review Inspection Program. Background Ongoing updates to IMC 2694 and IMC 2604 will differentiate between applicants and licensees when it comes to assessing performance during construction. More specifically, licensees will continue to use the framework described in IMC 2604 (Licensee Performance Review) and applicants will not be subject to any assessment because ANIs will not apply to them. Its my understanding the reason ANIs dont apply is because there are no legal requirements without a license. While IMC 2694 and IMC 2604 both currently speak to assessing applicants, we have decided to remove that important element from our oversight program. In bringing up this concern, its my understanding we are unwilling to address it because of ADVANCE Act deadlines. Concern One purpose of the assessment process is provide a graded approach to inspection where declining performance is identified. Applicants will arguably have more issues during construction than licensees who have established programs. Therefore, we should be better prepared to review and respond to applicants problems. Without an established framework to review/assess an applicant the agency risks: 1) ignoring declining performance or 2) creating an ad hoc process along the way which attempts to fill this void but lacks clarity and openness.
Alternative View I believe we are able to and should identify declining performance of applicants, just as we will for a licensee. The manner in which we do so would be different, but the principle is the same. While there are no legal requirements for the applicant and therefore no violations, we can still identify declining performance through construction open items (COI). For example, several COI all related to a single management measure or a single work activity could indicate a programmatic breakdown and therefore warrant supplemental inspections to determine how an applicant is addressing that breakdown. Failure to even consider this topic in our guidance increases the likelihood of unidentified safety issues during construction, reduces oversight of applicants despite the reasonable belief they will have more problems, and harms our credibility as a regulator. PLEASE NOTE: I'm unsure who the formal "Document Signer" is for IMC 2604. In order to move this forward I made a guess of Shana Helton.
17.
Submitted By / Submitted On Eric C Michel - BRANCH CHIEF 2025-05-08
NRC FORM 757 (06-2019)
Page 3 of 6 Use ADAMS Template NRC-006 (ML063120159)
NRC FORM 757 (06-2019)
Page 4 of 6 Use ADAMS Template NRC-006 (ML063120159)
NRC FORM 757 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (06-2019)
NRC MD 10.158 NON-CONCURRENCE PROCESS (Continued) 1.
NCP Tracking Number NCP-2025-004 Date 2025-05-09 Section B - To Be Completed by Non-Concurring Employees Supervisor 2.
Title of Subject Document Assessment of Fuel Facility Applicants during Construction in IMC 2604 3.
ADAMS Accession Number ML24218A105 4.
Name of Non-Concurring Employees Supervisor Ravi Penmetsa - DEPUTY DIR, DIV FUEL, RAD SFTY, SEC 5.
Non-Concurring Employees Supervisor Email Ravi.Penmetsa@nrc.gov 6.
Office Region 2 7.
Comments for the NCP Reviewer to Consider 8.
Reviewed By / Reviewed On Ravi Penmetsa - DEPUTY DIR, DIV FUEL, RAD SFTY, SEC 2025-05-09 Given the fact that new facilities will be handling higher enrichments I support this position from Eric
NRC FORM 757 (06-2019)
Page 5 of 6 Use ADAMS Template NRC-006 (ML063120159)
NRC FORM 757 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (06-2019)
NRC MD 10.158 NON-CONCURRENCE PROCESS (Continued) 1.
NCP Tracking Number NCP-2025-004 Date 2025-05-30 Section C - To Be Completed by NCP Coordinator 2.
Title of Subject Document Assessment of Fuel Facility Applicants during Construction in IMC 2604 3.
ADAMS Accession Number ML24218A105 4.
Name of NCP Coordinator Tomeka Terry - PROJECT MANAGER 5.
NCP Coordinators Email Tomeka.Terry@nrc.gov 6.
Office NMSS 7.
Agreed Upon Summary of Issues The non-concurring employee has concerns with lack of opportunity for, and guidance on, supplemental inspections for fuels construction applicants in the NRC staff updates to Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2604, Licensee Performance Review, and IMC 2694, Fuel Cycle Facility Construction and Pre-Operational Readiness Review Inspection Program. The ongoing updates to IMC 2604 and IMC 2694 will differentiate between applicants and licensees when it comes to assessing performance during construction.
Specifically, IMC 2604 applies to the operating fuel cycle facility license holders which have both construction and operation. IMC 2694 applies to new fuel cycle facilities being constructed at previously licensed facilities and new applicants, who do not yet hold an NRC license. In accordance with IMC 2694, applicants, that are not yet licensed, will not be subject to any performance assessment because Area Needing Improvements (ANIs) will not apply. It is the non-concurring employees understanding that the reason ANI's do not apply is because there are no legal requirements without a license. While the non-concurring employee agrees this explains why no violations will be issued to applicants, the lack of an assessment process is not as clear. While IMC 2604 and IMC 2694 both address assessing applicants, the non-concurring employee NRC deems that assessment is an important element that should be included in our oversight program. It is the non-concurring employees understanding that staff is not addressing this issue because of ADVANCE Act deadlines. The non-concurring employee believes that one purpose of the assessment process is to provide a graded approach to inspection where declining performance is identified, and applicants will possibly have more issues during construction than licensees who have established management measures programs. Therefore, the non-concurring employee believes that NRC staff should be better prepared to review and respond to the applicants' problems. However, the non-concurring employee believes that without an established framework to review and assess an applicant, the NRC risks: (1) ignoring declining performance, or (2) creating an improvised process along the way which attempts to fill this void but lacks clarity and openness. The non-concurring employee believes that we can and should identify the declining performance of applicants, just as well for a licensee. The way we do so would be different, but the principle would be the same. While there are no legally enforceable requirements for the applicant, we can still identify declining performance through construction open items. For example, several construction open items all related to a single management measure, or a single work activity could indicate a programmatic breakdown and therefore warrant supplement inspections to determine how an applicant is addressing that breakdown. The non-concurring employee believes that failure to consider this topic in our guidance increases the likelihood of unidentified safety issues during construction, reduces oversight of applicants despite the reasonable belief they will have more problems, harms our credibility as regulator, and could call into question our determination that an operating license condition has been met.
8.
Evaluation of Non-Concurrence and Rationale for Decision I appreciate the concerns raised by the individual and the respectful exercising of the NRCs open, collaborative work environment.
Further, I appreciate the respectful interactions we had on this topic during the rapid resolution meeting. I do not agree with the concern raised in the non-concurrence. Firstly, I do not find it appropriate to have a burdensome assessment process placed on an entity who is not yet regulated by the NRC. While applicants may construct at risk and make their site available to the NRC for oversight activities, they do not yet have license terms with which they must comply. The fuel facility construction inspection program in draft IMC 2694 gives the inspectors flexibility to identify inspection samples and spend more or less resources depending on the risk and safety significance of the facility. If needed, inspectors may follow up on specific Open Items or concerns during the course of their inspection or identify a follow up inspection if needed. This agility can be provided through modifications of the Principal Inspection Plan (PIP) using results of the inspection when the staff identifies problem areas within the course of the early inspections (see draft IMC 2694, Section 07.07). This process is similar to the direction the NRC is taking for the oversight of advanced reactors
NRC FORM 757 (06-2019)
Page 6 of 6 Use ADAMS Template NRC-006 (ML063120159) under construction (ARCOP), where more of a continuous review of inspection results is being leveraged). During at-risk construction, NRC inspectors will concurrently perform oversight activities for such construction during the application or LAR review. In this process, inspectors may identify Open Items, to flag discrepancies identified between the as-built condition and the license application, environmental report, integrated safety assessment, or other design basis document that supports the licensing review being performed. The inspector should identify, to the greatest degree possible, what information is required to close the Open Item to the applicant at the exit meeting and a schedule for obtaining that information should be obtained. Open Items may be resolved during the course of the licensing review, or in a follow up inspection. For many facilities, the NRC will conduct an Operational Readiness Review (ORR). The NRC will not authorize the licensee to introduce special nuclear material and begin operation until the NRC approves the license and finds that the results of the ORR are satisfactory. Further, the NRC continues to oversee the facility once it is operating with an appropriate inspection program that verifies the licensee meets the terms of its NRC license and takes corrective action when needed to address safety issues. This framework has been proven effective as evidenced by the industrys strong safety record and the recent Fuel Cycle Facility Inspection Program Self-Assessment, (ADAMS Accession Number ML24309A106) which confirmed the NRCs oversight effectiveness. At this time, I do not find it appropriate to add an additional step in the oversight process during the construction phase before a facility is licensed.
9.
Coordinated By / Coordinated On Tomeka Terry 2025-05-30 10.
Approved By / Approved On Shana Helton - DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FUEL MANAGEMENT 2025-05-30