**NRC INSPECTION MANUAL**	IRAB

INSPECTION MANUAL CHAPTER 0609, ATTACHMENT 5

# INSPECTION FINDING REVIEW BOARD

Effective Date: 01/01/2024

# 0609.05-01	PURPOSE

The purpose of the Inspection Finding Review Board (IFRB) is to provide a formal framework to obtain regional staff and management agreement on the proposed performance deficiency and to effectively manage the actions needed to reach a preliminary decision on the significance of inspection findings that do not initially screen to Green. This framework, through effective management oversight and project planning, aims to ensure that all involved regional managers and staff are aligned on the specific actions needed, the scope of the work to be done, and the associated schedule to reach an informed decision on licensee performance deficiencies and their preliminary significance prior to conducting a Significance and Enforcement Review Panel (SERP).

This document will be used in conjunction with Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, “Significance Determination Process,” and IMC 0609, Attachment 1, “Significance and Enforcement Review Panel Process.” These procedures are intended to ensure the Significance Determination Process (SDP) is efficient through appropriate management oversight and planning of the disposition of potentially greater-than-Green (GTG) inspection findings.

# 0609.05-02	APPLICABILITY

This guidance is applicable across all seven cornerstones and all IMC 0609 appendices. 

When proposed inspection findings in any cornerstone do not initially screen to Green using the appropriate SDP screening tools, in almost all cases, an IFRB should be convened by regional staff. A straightforward issue that experience has shown will ultimately result in a Green determination without significant effort would not require convening the IFRB.

For proposed findings in the security cornerstone that do not initially screen to Green, an IFRB or Security Issues Forum (SIF) should be convened. When a SIF is held in place of an IFRB, the SIF must fulfill the same objectives, tasks, and assignments that an IFRB would have accomplished.

# 0609.05-03	OBJECTIVES

Ensure regional management and staff align on the proposed licensee performance deficiency (PD), the degraded condition, and how the performance deficiency is the proximate cause of the degraded condition. The proposed violation can be discussed, but alignment is not necessary at this point.

Ensure there is early alignment on the scope, schedule and involved resources to support an efficient and effective preliminary significance assessment.

Develop any additional key messages to be communicated to licensee senior management by the IFRB Chair.

# 0609.05-04	GUIDANCE

The IFRB Worksheet (exhibit 1 of this procedure) is used to document the receipt, evaluation, and IFRB decisions for inspection findings for which the responsible branch chief, in consultation with other regional staff as appropriate, agree should be subject to an IFRB. Considering one of the outcomes of the IFRB is an approved performance deficiency, it is understood that, for SDP screening purposes, there needs to be a generally-agreed-upon proposed performance deficiency.

For non-deterministic SDPs, the IFRB should be convened when inspection findings do not initially screen to Green. However, the IFRB is not necessary for issues that do not initially screen to Green if the issue is straightforward and experience has shown it will ultimately result in a Green determination without significant effort (e.g., a bounding risk analysis).

For deterministic SDPs, the IFRB (or SIF) should be convened when inspection findings do not clearly screen to Green using the most appropriate IMC 0609 Appendix. An IFRB (or SIF) is not necessary when the proposed significance of the finding using deterministic SDP flowcharts appears to be exceedingly clear, obvious, and straightforward. In this rare circumstance ,the responsible branch chief should inform regional management when the decision is made to proceed without an IFRB, and the basis for this decision should be included on any future SERP forms for the issue. An IFRB (or SIF) can always be held based on management discretion.

For security inspection findings, a SIF can be used in place of the IFRB. The SIF provides a forum for regional and headquarters staff (Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), Office of the General Counsel, Office of Enforcement, and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation) to solicit input from each other regarding a number of security inspection-related issues, including potentially GTG security findings. When using a SIF instead of an IFRB, the SIF must fulfill the same objectives, tasks, and assignments that an IFRB would have accomplished, including assignment of a designated division-level manager as the single point of contact for the issue.

The IFRB should consist of the IFRB Chair, who will be a Senior Executive Service manager and the Sponsor for the finding (this individual should also normally be the Sponsor during the SERP process), the lead inspector, the Senior Reactor Analyst (SRA), the inspection and projects branch chiefs responsible for inspection of the issue and responsible for overall NRC inspection activities at the site, and a regional enforcement specialist. Since the IFRB is a regional activity, attendance by headquarters staff is at the region’s discretion. Included in the IFRB should be a decision on whether a Planning SERP is needed, consistent with the guidance in section 02.01.a.2 of IMC 0609, Attachment 1.

It is beneficial to hold the IFRB promptly once it is known that an identified performance deficiency is potentially GTG to drive timely dispositioning of the issue. It is also beneficial to have as much certainty around the performance deficiency as possible at the IFRB since subsequent changes to the performance deficiency are likely to have resource implications. For this reason, regions should use judgement in determining when to schedule the IFRB, balancing the desire to delay for purposes of seeking additional information with the ability and desire to disposition the issue in a timely manner. However, it is also recognized that additional information might become available after the IFRB that changes the description of the degraded condition or warrants adjustments to the performance deficiency. A Follow-up IFRB should be considered when it is expected that there may be significant departures from what was agreed upon at the initial IFRB. For example, a Follow-up IFRB could be considered when:

a change to the degraded condition or previously-aligned-upon performance deficiency is proposed that may result in a significant change to the previously-aligned-upon resources, schedule, and plan for assessing the significance, or

a previous IFRB on the issue determined that a Follow-up IFRB should be held.

Following the IFRB (or SIF), the IFRB Chair will call senior site management to discuss the outcome of the IFRB and plan for dispositioning the issue. Specific topics to be discussed on this call include, but are not limited to:

the outcome of the IFRB

the performance deficiency

NRC’s planned schedule for dispositioning the issue

any information needs to support dispositioning the issue

the concepts of proximate cause and best available information, as necessary

Sensitivity should be given to the possible impact on the licensee of changes to resource and schedule plans, and the issue Sponsor should maintain communication with licensee management throughout the dispositioning of the issue.

Exhibit 1, “IFRB Worksheet,” serves as the basis for the discussion of the concerns during the IFRB. The sections of the Worksheet contain a summary of the issue (section 1), the performance deficiency details and initial evaluation (section 2), inspection staff recommended action (section 3), and IFRB decisions (section 4). The IFRB Worksheet shall be promptly sent to the cognizant inspection branch chief and routed with SERP documentation if a SERP will be held. The IFRB Worksheet shall be maintained in Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). See section 04.02.

Exhibit 2, “Inspection and Significance Determination Process Metrics,” is provided to illustrate the 255-day period from issue identification through final significance determination. The exhibit reflects the completion goals of 120 days from the issue identification until the final exit, 45 days to issue the inspection report or choice letter, and 90 days to complete the SDP evaluation and issue the final significance determination letter.

## 04.01 IFRB Worksheet

a. Section 1, “Issue Summary”

1. General Information: Enter Facility Name, Docket/License #, EA Number and Responsible Inspection Branch.

2. Brief Overall Issue Summary: Provide a short summary of the degraded condition or issue of concern and how it was identified. Describe how the performance deficiency is the proximate cause of the degraded plant condition. Determine if the issue should be considered for an “old design issue.”

3. Enter Issue Start Date using the calendar drop-box. The other dates will autocalculate. (Reference IMC 0307, Appendix A for guidance on determination of the event date).

4. Answer whether the timeliness metric will be met and explain the reason. It is understood that at this point, it isn’t definitively known whether the metrics will be met, so the question should be answered based on the most reasonable projection given the information known at the time. It is best to raise potential concerns with meeting metrics early, even if they may ultimately be met.

b. Section 2, “Issue Information”

1. Performance Deficiency and Associated Violation: Provide a concise statement of the performance deficiency and associated violation. This is the version of the performance deficiency that, after approval by the IFRB, will be used at the SERP and documented in the inspection report.

2. Affected Structures, Systems, Components (SSCs), Operator Actions, and RiskRelevant Functions: List the SSCs, operator actions, and relevant probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) functions that have been affected by the identified performance deficiency. The functions important to the SDP are the risk-relevant functions as described in documents such as the plant risk information e-book (PRIB), the NRC’s Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) model, the historical SDP notebooks, or the licensees PRA. The functions may be different from the “specified safety function” as described in the plant’s Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

3. Conditions When the Performance Deficiency Would Manifest Itself: Describe the type of accident, environmental conditions, plant configuration (as applicable) during which the performance deficiency would impact plant safety.

4. Initial SDP Screening: Determine which cornerstones are affected. Provide basis for more-than-minor determination. Provide the basis for why the finding does not screen to Green in the applicable IMC 0609 Appendix.

5. Exposure Time: Enter the duration the degraded condition existed or is assumed to have existed, including repair time. Include both the start time and end time for the exposure period, along with the basis for the selection of these dates/times. Describe whether T (if the actual start time of PRA non-functionality is known) or T/2 (if the actual start time of PRA non-functionality is not known) should be considered for calculating the duration. When using T/2, the time period to be halved starts with the last known time the SSC was definitively shown to be PRA functional. Any repair time in which the SSC was unable to perform a PRA function is always included in the exposure time. Additional information about the determination of exposure time is included in the Risk Assessment Standardization Project (RASP) Handbook. Consult with the SRA to determine the exposure time.

6. Are External Events Likely to be the Main Risk Contributor (i.e., earthquake, fire, external flooding, and tornados/high winds): Answer yes/no and if yes, describe the scenarios where the affected component(s) would be called upon.

7. Is Recovery of the “Failed Function” Credible? Describe the conditions for which the licensee may be able to recover the function that was impaired or lost as a result of the performance deficiency. For example, if an operator action could be taken, is there training provided, procedures already established, and equipment necessary to take the action available. Is credit for Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX) equipment appropriate?

8. Describe How Current PRA Techniques and Tools and Tools Apply. Are the existing PRA models and techniques sufficient to adequately determine the issue significance? Which risk metric will be used for the SDP evaluation (delta core damage frequency, delta large early release frequency, condition core damage probability)? If not, describe alternate means available or needed to determine significance.

9. Additional Issue Complexities, if any.

10. Licensee’s Perspective. Provide licensee’s position on the performance deficiency, if known.

c. Section 3, “Branch Recommendations”

1. Select from the following options:

(a) Region completes the detailed risk evaluation (DRE) or finalizes the deterministic evaluation. Proceed to SERP, if necessary. Select this option when the SRA or other regional staff determined that the finding can be evaluated with regional resources only. If possible, estimate a planned completion date for the evaluation and planned SERP date. Coordinate with regional enforcement staff for the planned completion date(s).

(b) Request additional resources. Proceed to Planning SERP. Select this option when resources outside the region are necessary for completing the DRE or deterministic evaluation. Identify the additional resources required and form an SDP project team with all the individuals needed to complete the analysis. List those individuals on the IFRB Worksheet. Schedule a Planning SERP and provide the date on the IFRB Worksheet. Conduct Planning SERP in accordance with IMC 0609, Attachment 1.

2. Proposed next steps. Include proposed next steps and actions, including proposed milestones and assignments for discussion at the IFRB.

d. Section 4, “IFRB Outcome”

1. Document the IFRB date and the date of any previous IFRBs on the issue.

2. Indicate whether this is an Initial IFRB or Follow-up IFRB. If it is a Follow-up IFRB, document the reason for the Follow-up IFRB.

3. Document IFRB logistical information.

4. List the IFRB attendees.

5. Document pertinent discussion or comments resulting from the IFRB related to the issue, including actions and due dates, as applicable. Additional actions could include, for example, gathering more information, additional evaluation of the performance deficiency, or accelerated due dates.

6. If the performance deficiency discussed at the IFRB is not approved, determine what is required for approval, next steps, and document who is to complete the action. Determine if communication with the licensee is required to complete any of the actions developed.

7. If the performance deficiency discussed at the IFRB is approved, the IFRB Chair shall contact the respective licensee’s senior management to inform them of the region’s decision to move forward with conducting a DRE and/or a Planning SERP. The IFRB Chair shall advise licensee management that all subsequent management level communications on the finding should be coordinated through the IFRB Chair. The IFRB Worksheet should guide this discussion along with supplemental information, as necessary, provide by regional staff.

## 04.02 IFRB Documentation Retention

This section applies to both IFRB Worksheets and SIF Worksheets. Worksheets are non-public because they contain pre-decisional enforcement information.

Once the IFRB/SIF is completed, the Worksheet should be treated as a record of the IFRB/SIF, entered into ADAMS, and not further edited. Submit the approved and finalized Worksheet in the native application (e.g., MS Word) to the Document Processing Center to be declared as an Official Agency Record. This also applies to Worksheets associated with issues that will not move forward with a SERP. If a Follow-up IFRB is held, it should have its own IFRB Worksheet. Worksheets should be included in the information provided to SERP members ahead of a SERP or PRCR.

The region is responsible for entering the IFRB Worksheet into ADAMS. NSIR is responsible for entering the SIF Worksheet into ADAMS.

For retrievability and accountability, the Worksheet should be profiled as follows:

# 0609.05-05	REFERENCES

IMC 0307, Appendix A, “Reactor Oversight Process Self-Assessment Metrics and Data Trending”

IMC 0609, “Significance Determination Process”

IMC 0609, Attachment 1, “Significance and Enforcement Review Panel Process”

END

List of Exhibits:1. IFRB Worksheet2. Inspection and Significance Determination Process Metrics

List of Attachments:1. Revision History Table for IMC 0609 Attachment 5

Issue Date: 12/15/23	1	0609 Att 5

Exhibit 1: IFRB Worksheet (non-public ML23346A254)

Issue Date: 12/15/23	Ex1-1	0609 Att 5

Exhibit 2: Inspection And Significance Determination Process Metrics

Issue Date: 12/15/23	Exh2-1	0609 Att 5

Attachment 1: Revision History for IMC 0609 Attachment 5

Issue Date: 12/15/23	Att1-1	0609 Att 5

# image1.png