ML20195A128
| ML20195A128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry, Watts Bar, Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/2020 |
| From: | Mirela Gavrilas Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Garde B Clifford & Garde, LLP |
| Hon A | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19164A185 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, EPID L-2019-CRS-0002, OEDO-19-00288-NRR | |
| Download: ML20195A128 (5) | |
Text
August 6, 2020 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Clifford & Garde, LLP 1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 1060 Washington DC, 20036
Dear Ms. Garde:
Your petition dated June 4, 2019, and amended petition dated June 10, 2019, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, as well as your supplemental e-mail dated July 2, 2019, were referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). You requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) intervene in the conversion of the Tennessee Valley Authoritys (TVA or the licensee) Employee Concern Program (ECP). As the basis for your request, you stated that TVA violated NRC confirmatory order -EA-17-022 ((Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML17208A647) and undermined the credibility of the ECP.
The petition review board (PRB) has reviewed and concluded that your submittal does not meet the criteria for acceptance for review under 10 CFR 2.206 primarily because the NRC had already been engaged with TVA under different regulatory processes when your petition was received. On April 9, 2020, you were informed by e-mail of the PRBs initial assessment (ADAMS Accession No. ML20101P060). You met with the PRB on June 12, 2020, in a public conference call where you provided supplemental information for the PRB to consider before finalizing its assessment (included in ADAMS Accession No. ML19164A185). The supplemental information was considered in the PRBs final determination that the petition does not meet the criteria for acceptance for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
The PRB final assessment is based on the following considerations:
- 1. The safety-conscious work environment (SCWE) improvement effort at TVA is a continuous effort under the NRCs appropriate level of oversight and it is not appropriate for the NRC to take specific enforcement actions to dictate how an ECP should be structured by a licensee.
- 2. The PRB finalized its assessment after all of the information considered was publicly available, including enforcement and inspection activities underway at the time the petition was submitted.
B. Pirner Garde Detailed Discussion:
- 1. The SCWE improvement effort at TVA is a continuous effort under the NRCs appropriate level of oversight and it is not appropriate for the NRC to take specific enforcement actions to dictate how an ECP should be structured by a licensee.
The PRBs understanding is that your concerns with TVAs proposed changes to its ECP involve the potential impact to TVAs SCWE and employees willingness to raise concerns at TVA facilities. The original written petition requested (included in ADAMS Accession No. ML19164A185) the NRC to take the following specific enforcement actions against TVA:
a) Immediately issue an announcement to all TVA employees, reiterating their rights and responsibilities to raise any safety-related concerns, that doing so is a legally-protected activity, and prominently provide the NRCs telephone number and email address to all employees. If there is a significant safety-related concern or complaint of retaliation, employees must know that there is a viable alternative course of action, instead of remaining silent.
b) Immediately require TVA to stop its ECP program conversion; until it can demonstrate to the NRC a management of change process that ensures any program change maintains the necessary independence of any process to honestly, without interference by TVA management, report the truth of any findings.
c) Demand that TVA present its alleged new program to the NRC and the public for review, hold a public meeting, and then provide feedback to TVA on whether its proposal is consistent with the expectations that have been established by the confirmatory orders and ECP best practices.
With respect to the first requested action (a), NRC Form-3 (Federal Register Notice 82 FR 46310, October 4, 2017), Notice to Employees, consists of questions and answers about the NRC and its responsibilities, employees rights and responsibilities, instructions to employees on how to report safety concerns and violations of NRC rules, and information on contacting the NRC. The licensee has posted this information, as required (and it was verified by the resident inspectors at TVA nuclear power plants), to formally inform licensee employees of their rights and responsibilities regarding safety concerns. Since the licensee has complied with the employee notification requirements, enforcement-related action is not necessary. Furthermore, the NRC has resident inspectors assigned to each nuclear power plant and employees may report safety concerns directly to them.
With respect to the second and third requested actions (b and c), the NRC regulations do not have prescriptive requirements, in particular the degree of independence from the line organization, for the licensees ECP. Therefore, each licensee has the flexibility to implement an ECP that meets the underlying purpose of maintaining a positive SCWE and may adjust it as needed or may elect to not implement one at all.
In your July 2, 2019, e-mail (included in ADAMS Accession No. ML19164A185), you state, in part, replacing [previous ECP Program Manager] with an unqualified manager in violation of Confirmatory Order EA-09-009 [CO-EA-17-022] requirement V.1.a. and assigned manager, has no ECP experience and does not meet the requirements of the NRC Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2005-18, Guidance for Establishing and Maintaining
B. Pirner Garde a Safety Conscious Work Environment and the encompassed document [Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI-97-05. Accordingly, the NRC reviewed the related confirmatory orders related to the TVA SCWE. They did not identify how TVAs ECP should be structured. NEI-97-05, Nuclear Power Plant Personnel-Employee Concerns Program - Process Tools in a Safety Conscious Work Environment, is voluntary industry guidance and has not been endorsed by the NRC. In addition, RIS 2005-18 specifically states that the guidance in this RIS is not a regulatory requirement; licensees and contractors should review the following information for practices that may best foster a SCWE given the particular management structure and organizational style at their facility. Therefore, asking for enforcement action to require TVAs ECP to be managed independent of a line organization would be beyond the scope of existing NRC requirements.
- 2. The PRB finalized its assessment after all of the information considered was publicly available, including enforcement and inspection activities underway at the time the petition was submitted.
The PRB assessed whether the petition met the acceptance criteria in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.11, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions. The PRBs initial assessment was that the petition did not meet the criteria in MD 8.11,Section III.C.1(b), to be accepted for review because the issues raised in the petition have been the subject of a facility-specific or generic NRC staff review, and none of the circumstances in Section III.C.1(b)(ii) apply. At the time the petition was submitted to the NRC in June 2019, the NRC was engaged in several ongoing regulatory processes concerning TVA, including enforcement, inspection, assessment, and the review of allegations.
In order to ensure all information relied on by the PRB was publicly available, the NRC determined that a delay in the petition response was warranted. The NRC staff has evaluated and continues to evaluate the SCWE at NRC-regulated facilities, including TVA.
More specifically, since the changes to TVAs ECP occurred, the NRC staff has completed SCWE inspections at the TVA operating reactors in the spring and summer of 2019. The resident inspectors have begun meeting with the new ECP coordinators since the implementation of the new program. Based on these meetings and discussions with TVA staff, the inspectors have confirmed that the new ECP is being used. In addition, the number of allegations received by the NRC has decreased since the ECP change was announced and implemented.
The NRC conducted inspections and interviews at all three of TVAs nuclear power plants and at its corporate headquarters to gauge the SCWE and the perception that TVA employees had regarding the ECP changes. The interviews indicated that the changes TVA had made to the ECP did not have a discernable impact on employees inclination to raise nuclear safety concerns or to use the ECP to raise such concerns. During biennial problem identification and resolution inspections, the NRC will continue to inspect the SWCE at TVA.
In addition, the escalated enforcement actions that were recently proposed are for violations that occurred before the 2019 ECP restructure at TVA and thus are not germane to the NRCs review of the petition.
B. Pirner Garde In summary, although there are no prescriptive regulatory requirements for an ECP design, the PRB thoroughly assessed the information in your petition, as supplemented, considering other ongoing regulatory activities related to TVA. The PRB has determined your petition does not meet the MD 8.11 criteria for acceptance. The NRC will continue to provide appropriate oversight of the SCWE at TVA under the reactor oversight process and consistent with confirmatory orders and take enforcement actions, as needed.
Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.
Sincerely, Craig G. Erlanger, Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296, 50-327, 50-328, 50-390, and 50-391 cc:
Mr. James Barstow Vice President, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs and Support Services Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street, LP 4A-C Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Listserv Craig G.
Erlanger Digitally signed by Craig G. Erlanger Date: 2020.08.06 11:31:06 -04'00'
ML19164A185 (Package); ML20195A128 (Letter)
- by e-mail OFFICE NRR/DORL/LPL2-2/PM NRR/DORL/LPL2-2/PC* NRR/DORL/LPL2-2/LA*
NRR/DRO/IRAB*
NAME AHon PBuckberg BAbeywickrama MKeefe-Forsyth DATE 07/14/2020 07/20/2020 07/14/2020 07/21/2020 OFFICE RII/DRP*
OE*
OE*
NRR/DORL/LPL2-2/BC*
NAME TStephen LJarriel DWillis UShoop DATE 07/21/2020 07/16/2020 07/21/2020 07/23/2020 OFFICE OGC - NLO*
PRB Chair*
NRR/DD*
NRR/DORL/D*
NAME RCarpenter CErlanger MGavrilas CErlanger DATE 07/23/2020 07/27/2020 08/04/2020 08/06/2020