ML18192A599

DPO Case File: DPO-2017-011 (Public)

ML18192A599
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/14/2018
From:	Figueroa G NRC/OE
To:	Curtis Rapp NRC/RGN-II
Figueroa G
References
DPO-2017-011
Download: ML18192A599 (23)

Text

DPO Case File for DPO-2017-011 The following pdf represents a collection of documents associated with the submittal and disposition of a differing professional opinion (DPO) from NRC employees involving the documentation of a finding with insignificant to no safety significance, contrary to 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 DPO Program is a formal process that allows employees and NRC contractors to have their differing views on established, mission-related issues considered by the highest level managers in their organizations, i.e., Office Directors and Regional Administrators. The process also provides managers with an independent, multi-person review of the issue (one person chosen by the employee). After a decision is issued to an employee, he or she may appeal the decision to the Executive Director for Operations (or the Commission, for those offices that report to the 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 is important to note that the DPO submittal includes the personal opinions, views, and concerns by NRC employees. The NRCs evaluation of the concerns and the NRCs final position are included in the DPO Decision.

The records in this collection have been reviewed and approved for public dissemination.

Document 1: DPO Submittal Document 2: Memo Establishing DPO Panel Document 3: DPO Panel Report Document 4: DPO Decision

Document 1: DPO Submittal

Document 2: Memo Establishing DPO Panel January 17, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: Julio Lara, Panel Chairperson Region III Brad Bishop, Panel Member Region II 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:

AD HOC REVIEW PANEL - 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)

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 Mrs.

Haney for consideration and issuance of a DPO Decision.

CONTACTS: 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 17, 2018.

Process Milestones and Timeliness Goals for this DPO are included as Enclosure 2. The timeframes for completing process milestones are identified strictly as goalsa way of working towards reaching the DPO timeliness goal of 120 calendar days. The timeliness goal identified for your DPO task is 75 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. Mrs. Haney is responsible for subsequently forwarding the 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 appropriately. Documents should be distributed on an as-needed 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 employees as the DPO submitters. 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 submitters 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:

AD HOC REVIEW PANEL - 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 - ML17353A011 - ML18017A005 OE-011 OFFICE OE: DPO/PM OE: DPO/PM OE: D NAME GFigueroa RPedersen ABoland DATE 1/16/2018 1/17/2018 1/ 17/2018 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Document 3: DPO Panel Report April 23, 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: Catherine Haney, Regional Administrator, Region II FROM: Julio Lara, Panel Chair /RA/

Region III Brad Bishop, Panel Member /RA/

Region II Gregory Bowman, Panel Member /RA/

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

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 Sr. Differing Professional Views Program Manager appointed us as members of a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) Ad Hoc review Panel (DPO Panel) to review a DPO regarding the documentation of a finding with insignificant to no safety significance, contrary to 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 DPO Panels evaluation of the concerns raised in the DPO is detailed in the enclosed DPO Panel Report, and is submitted for your consideration. Based on our review of concerns raised in the DPO, the DPO Panel made the conclusions which follow.

The DPO 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, within the subjectivity provided in the guidance contained in IMC 0612. Additionally, the DPO panel concluded that further program guidance and clarification was warranted to ensure that more-than-minor determinations did not factor or aggregate factors outside the existing IMC 0612 guidance.

Lastly, further inspector training on more-than-minor determinations is appropriate.

The DPO Panel is well aware of various program office efforts to clarify and/or revise the more-than-minor guidance contained in IMC 0612 and recognizes the program office (NRR/DIRS) continues to work with regional offices to develop meaningful recommendations to revise the more-than-minor guidance. The DPO Panel recommends the program office consider additional options beyond those currently in development. Other alternative approaches should consider revision of the screening questions with a focus on risk-informed concepts to help achieve program reliability as well as advancing the risk-informed thinking of the inspection staff. The DPO Panel does not consider this recommendation as binding, but rather provides additional considerations and options to further the agencys efforts in risk-informed decision making.

C. Haney Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the enclosed report.

Enclosure:

DPO Panel Report cc: C. Haney, RII L. Dudes, RII C. Rapp, RII P. Louden, RIII S. Sandal, RII M. King, NRR/DIRS A. Boland, OE G. Figueroa-Toledo, OE

C. Haney

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)

ADAMS Accession Number: ML18113A158 Publicly Available Non-Publicly Available Sensitive Non-Sensitive OFFICE DPO/PC DPO/PM DPO/PM NAME JLara:bw BBishop via GBowman via email email DATE 4/23/2018 04/19/2018 04/20/2018 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) on the Documentation of a Finding with Insignificant to No Safety Significance, Contrary to ROP Guidance, at Watts Bar (DPO-2017-011)

DPO Panel Report

_________________/RA/______________________________

Julio Lara, Panel Chair

________________/RA/_______________________________

Brad Bishop, Panel Member

________________/RA/_______________________________

Gregory Bowman, Panel Member April 23, 2018 Enclosure

Introduction Differing Professional Opinion (DPO-2017-011) was received on December 12, 2017.

The DPO submitters concern involved the documentation of a finding that the submitter believes had insignificant to no safety significance contrary to ROP guidance. The memorandum from the Senior Differing Professional Views Program Manager, Office of Enforcement, establishing the Differing Professional Opinion Panel (DPO Panel or Panel) was issued on January 17, 2018. The memorandum tasked the Panel with conducting an independent review of the issues in accordance with Management Directive (MD) 10.159, NRC Differing Professional Opinion Program.

The Panel met with the submitter on February 7, 2018, to establish and approve a concise statement of the concerns. The submitter approved the statement of concerns on March 12, 2018. The Panel performed its review by interviewing the submitter, reviewing documents, and interviewing NRC managers and staff members involved in the review and issuance of the associated inspection report which documented the finding of concern. The following documents the agreed upon summary of issues:

Summary of Issues (SOI)

Based on a review of the DPO submittal and associated references as well as an interview with the submitter, the following concerns were identified by the Panel:

1. Fundamental concern is the documentation of inspection issues which have no safety significance and such practices are inconsistent with the ROP guidance. Specifically, Watts Bar integrated inspection report 2017003 documented an operational event and related 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.

2. 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.

The DPO submitter 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.

Background:

The DPO submitter previously submitted a non-concurrence based upon the documentation and issuance of a self-revealed finding of very low safety significance (Green) and an NCV of Technical Specifications 5.7.1.1.a, Procedures, at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Specifically, the licensees failure to follow a Tennessee Valley Authority procedure resulted in the inadvertent lifting of a pressurizer power-operated relief valve (PORV). As a result, reactor coolant system pressure decreased and primary coolant was diverted to the pressurizer relief tank (PRT) through the open PORV. Control room operators responded to a PRT high pressure alarm and subsequently closed the PORV to stop the loss of primary system inventory. The DPO submitter is of the view that the significance of the performance deficiency and 2

associated NCV is minor, pursuant to the ROP guidance contained in Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0612, and should not have been documented.

The non-concurrence review and evaluation concluded that the performance deficiency had been evaluated in accordance with IMC 0612 Appendix B, and informed by IMC 0612, Appendix E, which contains representative examples illustrating the underlying concepts behind minor and more-than-minor determinations. Therefore, documentation of this issue as a Green finding in the Watts Bar inspection report was consistent with program guidance.

The DPO submitter contends that documenting this issue as more-than-minor constitutes a divergence from the fundamental tenets of the ROP, and reduces the reliability and credibility of the ROP.

Evaluation of Issues Issue 1:

Fundamental concern is the documentation of inspection issues which have no safety significance and such practices are inconsistent with the ROP guidance. Specifically, Watts Bar integrated report 2017003 documented an operational event and related 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.

Discussion and

Conclusions:

The issue at hand relates to a differing usage and interpretation of agency guidance prescribed in IMC 0612, Appendix B, Issue Screening. This IMC is the governing guidance document with respect to determining whether a performance deficiency is of minor or more-than-minor significance. This very issue of significance determination has been in the forefront of the inspection program since the inception of the ROP.

In September 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report following an extensive review of the agencys implementation of the ROP: Nuclear Power: Analysis of Regional Differences and Improved Access to Information Could Strengthen NRC Oversight. The report documented concerns regarding the number of documented non-escalated findings (Green risk significance) which differed between regions. Specifically, the NRC had not performed a comprehensive analysis of the causes of the differences in the number of Green findings across regions. Of concern was that without such an analysis, the NRC could not know whether the four regional offices were applying the ROP consistently.

Ensuring regional consistency in the application of the minor or more-than-minor significance determination has been a topic at various levels of agency management since 2013, and further focus continues in this regard, as recently as in January 2018, during a Division Director Counterpart Meeting. During the meeting, various approaches and options were discussed to provide clarity in the guidance for more-than-minor screening. While work in this area continues, this effort has not yet resulted in guidance that fully addresses the concerns raised by GAO and those raised by the Office of the Inspector General in a subsequent evaluation.

3

The panel discussed the specific circumstances of the loss of coolant inventory to the PRT and reviewed the IMC 0612 issue screening guidance. The DPO panel coalesced around the view that based upon the established guidance within IMC 0612, inspectors could very well reach different conclusions on significance of the subject inspection finding. The panel also concluded that a possible contributing factor was less frequent training on the fundamental ROP basis and screening guidance. As a result, a divergent level of knowledge could very well exist across the regional offices and cadre of inspectors.

With respect to the specific issue in the non-concurrence and DPO, and in light of the conclusions above, the DPO panel agreed that the decision to document the issue as a finding with more-than-minor significance was appropriate, and that this decision was supported by the existing program guidance.

Agency focus and efforts to bring a clear and predictable outcome to issue screening should continue. See recommendations below.

Issue 2:

Inspectors should not consider additional licensee performance insights beyond those associated with the specified performance deficiency.

Discussion and

Conclusions:

At the time the Watts Bar inspection issue was being reviewed for issuance, Region II inspectors engaged in numerous conversations and deliberations relating to the safety significance of the issue. An email correspondence from inspection staff suggested that aggregating factors, beyond those associated with the specific performance deficiency, were considered in the conclusion that this issue should be documented within the associated inspection report. The NCP evaluation reviewed these aspects in the context of whether these aggravating factors inappropriately influenced the determination of significance. Through a review of the draft and final inspection report, the NCP evaluation concluded that these factors were not a factor in the decision-making for the determination of significance.

The DPO Panel concurs with this conclusion. Nonetheless, the DPO panel believes that 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.

Overall Conclusion The DPO submitter 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 of minor/more-than-minor guidance.

As discussed above, the DPO panel concluded that the issuance of the inspection finding by the Region II office was appropriate and consistent with program guidance, which provides for some level of inherent subjectivity in the minor/more-than-minor determination. Additionally, the DPO panel concluded that further clarification and guidance was appropriate to ensure that more-than-minor determinations do not 4

consider or aggregate factors in a manner inconsistent with IMC 0612 guidance. Lastly, although further inspector training on more-than-minor determinations is appropriate, the DPO panel recognizes that the program guidance is currently under review for potential improvements. Upon issuance of revisions, training is certainly appropriate.

Recommendation(s)

The DPO Panel is well aware of various program office efforts underway to clarify and/or revise the more-than-minor guidance contained in IMC 0612. However, since receipt of the GAO report, these efforts have not yet been effective in reaching consensus across the regional offices and NRR on how to best to achieve reliable implementation of the program guidance. This is evidenced by the continued inconsistency in the number of Green findings issued by each region.

The program office (NRR/DIRS) continues to work with regional offices to develop recommendations to revise the minor/more-than-minor guidance. Examples of strategies under consideration include elimination of the minor/more-than-minor threshold and establishment of reduced document requirements for findings of less than White significance, and large-scale revisions to IMC 0612 Appendices B and E.

The DPO panel proposes the following three recommendations to further the agencys efforts in consistent implementations of the ROP.

(1) The DPO Panel recommends the program office 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.

A potential risk-informed framework is briefly discussed below.

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174 provides an acceptable approach for evaluation license amendment requests. The DPO panel recommends additional study of the risk-informed philosophy and principles contained in RG 1.174 to the efforts to clarify the screening process. This is a natural extension of the risk informed philosophies contained in the RG. Focusing the performance deficiency screening questions on a risk-informed decision-making philosophy would drive the inspection staff to think about the risk triplet:

• What can go wrong?

• How likely is it?

• What are the consequences?

If such an approach were adopted, the screening questions could incorporate risk-informed decision-making principles, which when combined with traditional engineering evaluations, result in a more risk informed and predictable outcome with respect to screening of performance deficiencies and violations.

The risk-informed screening questions could be developed to identify those performance deficiencies which reflect an actual change in risk (consequence/impact/outcome based), rather than the current structure. The 5

DPO Panel recognizes this is a significant change from our current practice.

Representative screening examples are listed below:

• Does the performance deficiency affect the functionality or operability of the SSC?

• Does the performance deficiency significantly reduce the defense-in-depth of the affected SSC?

• Does the performance deficiency reduce the available engineering or operational margin of the affected SSC?

• Does the performance deficiency affect the reliability or availability of the affected SSC?

(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.

Persons Contacted:

Curtis Rapp, DPO Submitter Mark Franke, Deputy Division Director, Region II Alan Blamey, Branch Chief, Region II Necota Staples, Senior Project Engineer, Region II Son Ninh, Senior Project Engineer, Region II 6

Document 4: DPO Decision June 14, 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 Panels report, and met with the Panel Chairman. What follows is a summary of the Panels 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

C. Rapp 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.

Directors Decision:

After considering all the information noted above, I agree with the panels 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