ML18192A599
| ML18192A599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/14/2018 |
| From: | Figueroa G J NRC/OE |
| To: | Curtis Rapp NRC/RGN-II |
| Figueroa G J | |
| References | |
| DPO-2017-011 | |
| Download: ML18192A599 (23) | |
Text
DPO Case File for DPO-2017-011 The following pd f represents a collection of documents associated with the submittal and disposition of a differing professional opi ni on (DPO) from NRC employees involving the documentation of a finding with insignificant to no safety significance, contrary t o ROP guidance, at Watts Bar. Management Directive (MD) 10.159, "NRC Differing Professional Opinions Program," describes the DPO Program. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1513/ML15132A664.pdf The D PO Program i s a formal process that allows employees and NRC contractors t o have their differing views on established, mission-related issues considered by t he highest level managers in their organizations, i.e., Office Directors and Regional Administrators.
The process also provides managers with an independent, multi-perso n review of t he issue (one person chosen by the employee).
After a decision is issued t o an employee, he or sh e may appeal t he decision to t he Executiv e Director for Operations (or t he Commission, for t hose offices that report t o t he Commission). Because the disposition of a DPO represents a multi
-step process, readers should view the records as a collection. In other words, reading a document in isolation will not provide the correct context for how this issue was reviewed and considered by the NRC.
It i s important to not e that the DPO submittal includes t he personal opinions, views, and concerns by NRC employee
- s. The NRC's evaluation of t he concerns and t he NRC's final position are i nc luded in the DPO D ecision.
Document 1: DPO Submittal Document 2: Memo Establishing DPO P anel Document 3: DPO Panel Report Document 4: DPO Decision Document 1: DPO Submittal
Document 2
- Memo Establishing DPO Panel
January 17, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO:
, Panel Chairperson Region I I I Brad Bishop , Panel Member Region I I Gregory Bowman
, Panel Member Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU: Anne T. Boland , Director /RA/ Office of Enforcement FROM: Renée M. Pedersen
/RA/ Sr. Differing Professional Views Program Manager Office of Enforcement
SUBJECT:
- DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON THE DOCUMENTATION OF A FINDING WITH INSIGNIFICANT TO NO SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE, CONTRARY TO ROP GUIDANCE, AT WATTS BAR (DPO-2017-01 1) In accordance with Management Directive (MD) 10.159, "The NRC Differing Professional Opinion Program
- " and in my capacity as the Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) Program Manager; and in coordination with Anne Boland, Director, Office of Enforcement, Catherine Haney, Regional Administrator, Region II; and the DPO submitter
- you are being appointed as members of a DPO Ad Hoc Review Panel (DPO Panel) to review a DPO submitted by an U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) employee.
The DPO (Enclosure 1) involves the documentation of a finding with insignificant to no safety significance, contrary to ROP guidance, at Watts Bar
. The DPO has been forwarded to Mr
- s. Haney for consideration and issuance of a DPO Decision.
CONTACT S: Renée Pedersen, OE (301) 287-9426 Gladys Figueroa
-Toledo, OE (301) 287-9497 J. Lara , et al. 2 The DPO Panel has a critical role in the success of the DPO Program. Your responsibilities for conducting the independent review and documenting your conclusions in a report are addressed in the handbook for MD 10.159 in Section II.F and Section II.G, respectively.
The DPO Web site also includes helpful information, including interactive flow charts , frequently asked questions, and closed DPO cases, including previous DPO Panel reports
. We will also be sending you additional information that should help you implement the DPO process.
Because this process is not routine, we will be meeting and communicating with all parties during the process to ensure that everyone understands the process, goals, and responsibilities.
Disposition of this DPO should be considered an important and time sensitive activity. The timeliness goal for issuing a DPO Decision is 120 calendar days from the day the DPO is accepted for review. In this case, the DPO was accepted for review on December 18
, 2017. The timeliness goal for issuing this DPO Decision is April 1 7 , 2018. Process Milestones and Timeliness Goals for this DPO are included as Enclosure 2. The timeframes for completing process milestones are identified strictly as goals-a way of working towards reaching the DPO timeliness goal of 1 20 calendar days.
The timeliness goal identified for your DPO task is 7 5 calendar days from the date of this memorandum (April 2 , 2018). Although timeliness is an important DPO Program objective, the DPO Program also sets out to ensure that issues receive a thorough and independent review. The overall timeliness goal should be based on the significance and complexity of the issues and the priority of other agency work. Therefore, if you determine that your activity will result in the need for an extension beyond the overall 120
-day timeliness goal, please send an e
-mail to Mrs. Haney with a copy to DPOPM.Resource@nrc.gov and include the reason for the extension request and a proposed completion date for your work and a proposed timeliness goal for issuance of a DPO Decision. Mr s. Haney is responsible for subsequently forwarding th e request for a new DPO timeliness goal to the EDO for approval. An important aspect of our organizational culture includes maintaining an environment that encourages, supports, and respects differing views. As such, you should exercise discretion and treat this matter appropri ately. Documents should be distributed on an as
-need ed basis. In an effort to preserve privacy, minimize the effect on the work unit, and keep the focus on the issues, you should simply refer to the employee s as the DPO submitter
- s. Avoid conversations that could be perceived as "hallway talk" on the issue and refrain from behaviors that could be perceived as retaliatory or chilling to the DPO submitter s or that could potentially create a chilled environment for others.
It is appropriate for employees to discuss the details of the DPO with their co-workers as part of the evaluation; however, as with other predecisional processes, employees should not discuss details of the DPO outside the agency.
If you have observed inappropriate behaviors, heard allegations of retaliation or harassment , or receive outside inquiries or requests for information, please notify me or Gladys. On an administrative note, please ensure that all DPO
-related activities are charged to Activity Code ZG0007.
J. Lara , et al. 3 We appreciate your willingness to serve and your dedication to completing a thorough and objective review of this DPO. Successful resolution of the issues is important for NRC and its stakeholders. If you have any questions or concerns , please feel free to contact me or Gladys. We look forward to receiving your independent review results and recommendations.
Enclosures:
- 1. DPO-2017-011 2. Process Milestones and Timeliness Goals cc: C. Haney, RII L. Dudes, RII C. Rapp, RII P. Louden, RIII S. Sandal, RII M. King, NRR A. Boland, OE G. Figueroa-Toledo , OE J. Lara , et al. 4
SUBJECT:
- DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON THE DOCUMENTATION OF A FINDING WITH INSIGNIFICANT TO NO SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE, CONTRARY TO ROP GUIDANCE, AT WATTS BAR (DPO-2017-011) DATE: January 17, 2018 ADAMS Package:
ML18017A002 MEMO: ML18017A012 Enclosure 1
- ML17353A011 Enclosure 2
- ML18017A00 5 OE-011 OFFICE OE: DPO/PM OE: DPO/PM OE: D NAME GFigueroa RPedersen ABoland DATE 1/16/201 8 1/17/201 8 1/ 17/201 8 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Document 3: DPO Panel Report
/RA/
/RA/
/RA/
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
__/RA/
_/RA/_
__/RA/
Document 4: DPO Decision June 1 4, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO:
Curtis Rapp , Senior Project Engineer, Region II Division of Reactor Projects FROM: Catherine Haney
/RA/ Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION PANEL REPORT REGARDING THE DOCUMENTATION OF A FINDING WITH INSIGNIFICANT TO NO SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE, CONTRARY TO ROP GUIDANCE, AT WATTS BAR (DPO-2017-011) In a memorandum dated January 17, 2018, the Senior Differing Professional Views Program Manager appointed members of a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) Ad Hoc Review Panel (the Panel) to review a DPO regarding the documentation of a finding under the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). The DPO Panel has reviewed the DPO in accordance with the guidance in Management Directive 10.159, "The NRC Differing Professional Opinion Program
." The Panel was established and tasked to meet with you, review your DPO submittal, and issue a DPO report, including conclusions and recommendations to me regarding the disposition of the issues presented in your DPO.
Specifically, your DPO expressed concern that the documentation of inspection issues
, which have no safety significance, are inconsistent with the ROP guidance. Specifically, Watts Bar integrated report 2017003 documented an operational event and related a non-cited violation during unit shutdown which did not have safety consequences. Therefore, the finding should not have been documented as a non
-cited violation because of its minor significance. Additionally, inspectors should not consider additional licensee performance insights beyond those associated with the specified performance deficiency. Collectively these practices reduce the reliability and credibility of the ROP.
You recommended withdrawal of the issued non
-cited violation, clarification of program guidance with respect to minor
-more than minor thresholds, and retraining on the application minor-more than minor guidance.
In order to make a decision with regard to your DPO, I reviewed your DPO submittal, the Panel's report, and met with the Panel Chairman. What follows is a summary of the Panel's findings, recommendations, and my decision.
Overall Conclusion The Panel concluded that the issuance of the inspection finding by the Region II office was appropriate and consistent with program guidance and in large part based upon the subjectivity provided within the guidance contained in IMC 0612. Additionally, the Panel concluded
that further clarification and guidance was appropriate to ensure that more
-than-minor determinations did not factor or aggregate factors beyond the IMC 0612 guidance. Lastly, although further inspector training on more
-than-minor determinations is appropriate, the Panel recognized that the program guidance is currently under review for potential improvements.
Recommendation(s)
The Panel made the following three recommendations relating to more
-than-minor determinations:
(1) The program office should consider additional options beyond those currently in development. Other alternative approaches could focus on revision of the screening questions with a focus on more risk
-informed concepts to help achieve program reliability and advance the risk
-informed thinking of the inspection staff. The DPO Panel does not represent this framework as a binding recommendation, but rather an option for consideration.
(2) IMC 0612 should be revised to provide clear guidance that consideration of aggravating or compounding factors outside the IMC guidance is inappropriate.
Such guidance will provide greater assurance of conformance to program guidance and increase the overall reliable implementation of the Reactor Oversight Program.
(3) In coordination with NRR/DIRS, regional inspectors should receive ROP training on more-than-minor program guidance by June 2019. Director's Decision:
After considering all the information noted above, I agree with the panel's conclusions and will be forwarding the recommendations to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for consideration.
The package will be made publicly available if this is an action you support.
Thank you again for raising the issues in your DPO. An open and thorough exploration of how we carry out our regulatory processes is essential to keeping these programs effective.
ML18159A294 OFFICE RII:ORA NAME C. Haney DATE 6/14/18