**NRC INSPECTION MANUAL**	IRAB

INSPECTION MANUAL CHAPTER 0612

# ISSUE SCREENING

Effective Date:  08/09/2023

Issue Date:  05/03/17 	1 	0612 

Issue Date:  XX/XX/XX	4	0612

Table of Contents0612-01	PURPOSE	10612-02	OBJECTIVES	10612-03	DEFINITIONS	103.01	Apparent Violation (AV).	103.02	Cross-Cutting Aspect (CCA).	103.03	Finding.	103.04	Issue of Concern.	103.05	Licensee-Identified.	103.06	Minor Violation.	203.07	Non-Cited Violation (NCV)	203.08	Notice of Violation (NOV).	203.09	NRC-Identified.	203.10	Observation.	203.11	Pending Significance	203.12	Performance Deficiency.	203.13	Preliminary Significance	203.14	Present Performance.	203.15	Regulatory Requirement.	303.16	Standard or Self-Imposed Standard	303.17	Self-Revealed.	303.18	Severity Level (SL)	303.19	Significance Determination Process (SDP)	303.20	To Be Determined (TBD).	303.21	Traditional Enforcement (TE).	303.22	Unresolved Item (URI)	303.23	Violation	303.24	Very Low Safety Significance Issue Resolution (VLSSIR).	40612-04	RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES	40612-05	ISSUE SCREENING GUIDANCE	405.01	Guidance on the More-Than-Minor Screening Questions	5APPENDICES	6Attachment 1: Revision History for IMC 0612	Att1-1

Issue Date: 08/09/23	1	0612

# 0612-01	PURPOSE

01.01	Provide requirements for inspection issue screening.

01.02	Demonstrate how to apply the more-than-minor (MTM) screening questions.

01.03	Ensure that all violations of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements by power reactor licensees are appropriately dispositioned in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy. This includes traditional enforcement violations which cannot be addressed only through the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP).

# 0612-02	OBJECTIVES

02.01	Screen inspection results to determine if issues warrant documentation in inspection reports.

02.02	Enhance the minor – MTM determination predictability.

02.03	Ensure that violations are dispositioned in accordance with the Enforcement Policy and to ensure that performance deficiencies are screened, assessed, and documented in accordance with this IMC.

# 0612-03	DEFINITIONS

The following terms are applicable for the purposes of screening and documentation:

## 03.01	Apparent Violation (AV). A non-compliance with a regulatory requirement for which an enforcement decision has not been reached.

Examples include: (a) violations associated with ROP findings having pending or preliminary significance, (b) traditional enforcement violations being considered for escalated enforcement action, (c) violations being considered for enforcement discretion.

## 03.02	Cross-Cutting Aspect (CCA). Refer to IMC 0310, “Aspects Within the CrossCutting Areas” for the definition.

## 03.03	Finding. A performance deficiency determined to be MTM in accordance with IMC 0612, Appendix B.

## 03.04	Issue of Concern. A well-defined observation or collection of observations potentially impacting safety or security which may warrant further inspection, screening, evaluation, or regulatory action.

## 03.05	Licensee-Identified. Licensee-identified findings and violations are (1) identified as a result of deliberate observation by licensee personnel; and (2) entered into the licensee corrective action program.

Examples of deliberate observations that result in licensee-identified findings or violations include (1) those identified during activities such as post maintenance testing, operator rounds, engineering walkdowns, drills, critiques, or audits; and (2) degraded conditions identified during testing which do not result in test failure.

## 03.06	Minor Violation. A violation associated with a minor performance deficiency or a traditional enforcement violation that is less than Severity Level (SL) IV. All violations, including minor violations, must be corrected. Minor violations are not routinely documented in inspection reports.

## 03.07	Non-Cited Violation (NCV). A method for dispositioning a SL IV violation or a violation associated with a Green ROP finding that meets the criteria in section 2.3.2 of the Enforcement Policy.

## 03.08	Notice of Violation (NOV). A written notice setting forth one or more violations of a legally binding requirement (see 10 CFR 2.201, “Notice of Violation”).

## 03.09	NRC-Identified. NRC-identified findings or violations are found by NRC inspectors, of which the licensee was not previously aware or had not been previously documented in the licensee’s corrective action program. NRC-identified findings or violations also include issues initially identified by the licensee to which the inspector has identified inadequacies in the licensee’s characterization or evaluation of the issue of concern.

## 03.10	Observation. A factual detail noted during an inspection.

## 03.11	Pending Significance. A significance characterization assigned to a finding which requires further safety or security significance evaluation to determine a preliminary significance.

## 03.12	Performance Deficiency. The licensee’s failure to satisfy one or more regulatory requirements or self-imposed standards where such failure was reasonably foreseeable and preventable. Additional information is provided in block 2 of Appendix B of this IMC.

## 03.13	Preliminary Significance. A significance characterization assigned to a finding that has received a preliminary significance determination from the Significance Enforcement Review Panel (SERP) and was determined to be preliminarily White, Yellow, Red, or Greater than Green.

## 03.14	Present Performance. The potential CCA is reflective of present performance if the performance deficiency (not the event or condition resulting from the performance deficiency) occurred recently, nominally within the last 3 years. When appropriate, apply additional considerations to determine whether the CCA is reflective of present performance.

a. If the performance deficiency occurred more than 3 years ago, but the performance characteristic has not been corrected or eliminated, the inspector can conclude that the CCA is reflective of present performance.

b. If the performance deficiency occurred within the last 3 years, but the performance characteristic has since been corrected or eliminated, the inspector can conclude that the CCA is not reflective of present performance.

Note: Corrected or eliminated CCAs means the licensee had taken actions prior to the discovery of the performance deficiency and because of these actions, a similar issue would not likely occur now. For example, the licensee initiates actions to improve the quality of calculations; however, 2 months later, the inspector identifies problems with a calculation which had been issued a year before this effort. If the inspector believes the licensee’s actions to improve calculations would have prevented this recently identified issue, the inspectors can conclude the performance deficiency is not reflective of current performance.

## 03.15	Regulatory Requirement. A legally binding obligation such as a statute, regulation, license condition, technical specification, or order that is enforceable by the NRC.

## 03.16	Standard or Self-Imposed Standard. A licensee-established expectation that does not constitute a regulatory requirement.

## 03.17	Self-Revealed. Self-revealed findings or violations are those identified as a result of a condition that (1) become apparent through a readily detectable degradation in material condition, capability, or functionality of equipment or plant operations; and (2) does not meet the definition of licensee-identified or NRC-identified.

Examples of self-revealed findings or violations include those revealed through: unplanned reactor trips and secondary plant transients; obvious equipment and piping failures; failed on demand testing; valid plant or electronic dosimeter alarms; identification of large quantities of fluids in areas where one would not normally expect such a condition.

## 03.18	Severity Level (SL). The significance of a violation evaluated under traditional enforcement.

## 03.19	Significance Determination Process (SDP). The process described by IMC 0609 and associated appendices that is applied to an inspection finding to determine its safety or security significance as either Green (very low), White (low-to-moderate), Yellow (substantial), or Red (high).

## 03.20	To Be Determined (TBD). A significance characterization assigned to a finding with pending or preliminary significance. The TBD characterization will apply until the final significance is documented in an inspection report or final determination letter.

## 03.21	Traditional Enforcement (TE). An Enforcement Policy process used to disposition violations of NRC requirements that are not dispositioned through the ROP SDP. Violations receiving traditional enforcement are assigned a Severity Level and may include the imposition of a civil penalty as appropriate. Traditional enforcement is applied to violations associated with (a) actual consequences, (b) willfulness, and (c) impeding the regulatory process. Additionally traditional enforcement is used to disposition violations receiving enforcement discretion or violations without a performance deficiency. Independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI), and nuclear materials facilities are not subject to the SDP and, thus, traditional enforcement will be used for these facilities.

## 03.22	Unresolved Item (URI). An issue of concern associated with inspection activity which requires more information to determine if: (a) a performance deficiency exists, (b) the performance deficiency is MTM, or (c) the issue of concern potentially constitutes a violation.

## 03.23	Violation. The failure to comply with a legally binding regulatory requirement, such as a statute, regulation, order, license condition, or technical specification. Violations can be non-cited, cited, escalated or dispositioned using enforcement discretion.

## 03.24	Very Low Safety Significance Issue Resolution (VLSSIR). A process used to discontinue inspection of an issue involving an unresolved licensing basis question in which: (1) the resolution of the issue would require considerable staff effort; and (2) the agency has chosen to not expend further effort to resolve the question because the issue would be no greater than green under the ROP or SL IV under the traditional enforcement process, if it were determined to be a violation.

# 0612-04	RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES

04.01	General Responsibilities. Each inspection of a reactor facility must be properly characterized.

04.02	Inspectors. Ensure that inspection results are properly characterized and documented in accordance with NRC guidance.

04.03	Branch Chiefs or Division Directors. Review each inspection report to ensure it is consistent with the directives provided in this IMC.

Ensure that inspection findings, determinations, and actions are consistent with NRC policies, directions, and technical requirements. For example, ensure that screening and significance determinations documented in the inspection report are in accordance with Appendix B, “Issue Screening Directions,” of this IMC, IMC 0609, “Significance Determination Process,” and the Enforcement Policy, as applicable.

Ensure that violations are addressed in accordance with the Enforcement Policy and the Enforcement Manual.

04.04	Division of Inspection and Regional Support – ROP Assessment Branch.

a. Provide interpretations and support for information contained in this IMC.

b. Facilitate resolution of identified gaps in IMC directions and guidance.

# 0612-05	ISSUE SCREENING GUIDANCE

The minor –MTM determination requires inspectors to apply reasonable judgment to assess if the performance deficiency has created the potential of MTM safety or security consequences. In making this determination, inspectors should consider the circumstances, the likelihood of adversely affecting the cornerstone objectives, and the effect on applicable cornerstone objectives affecting safety and security. Other factors such as maintaining defense in depth, engineered safety margins, and the prevention of too much reliance on human operators for rapid critical decisions should also be considered in this assessment. Inspector should understand that equipment inoperability is not a pre-requisite for the performance deficiency to be MTM.

It should also be understood that with all judgmentcalls, some variability will exist whenever different inspectors have to apply judgment to unique and site-specific circumstances to determine if a performance deficiency is MTM. To ensure that the ROP is risk-informed, significant effort should not be expended on making minor or MTM determinations. Inspectors should risk inform their level of effort commensurate with the potential safety significance of the performance deficiency. Ultimately, the inspection report signature authority makes the final determination based on their interpretation of the guidance within this IMC.

Restoring compliance is required for all violations (minor or MTM).

## 05.01	Guidance on the More-than-Minor Screening Questions

When making the MTM determination, inspectors shall follow guidance to answer the MTM questions in IMC 0612, Appendix B, “Issue Screening Directions,” and shall use the examples in IMC 0612, Appendix E, “Examples of Minor Issues,” to inform the MTM determination:

a. Could the performance deficiency reasonably be viewed as a precursor to a significant event?

1. Management Directive (MD) 8.3, “NRC Incident Investigation Program,” defines a significant event as any radiological, safeguards, security or other event at an NRClicensed facility that poses an actual or potential hazard to public health and safety, common defense and security, property, or the environment. See MD 8.3 for more insights into what constitutes a significant event.

2. Significant events may include, but are not limited to, onsite or offsite releases of radiation or radiation exposures exceeding 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” regulatory limits, onsite or offsite chemical hazard exposures resulting from licensed or certified activities, accidental criticality, core damage, loss of significant safety barriers, loss of control of radioactive material that poses a realistic potential for exposure of the public exceeding applicable annual dose limits, failures to implement emergency plans, or failures to implement security plans.

3. For the performance deficiency to be a precursor to a significant event, the performance deficiency must exist prior to the significant event and establish conditions for the significant event to occur.

b. If left uncorrected, would the performance deficiency have the potential to lead to a more significant safety concern?

1. This screening question prompts the inspector to evaluate the potential result or outcome of the performance deficiency assuming no corrective actions are implemented.

2. The “if left uncorrected” consideration should be limited to the conditions stemming directly from the performance deficiency. Human performance errors associated with a performance deficiency should ordinarily be viewed as an isolated occurrence unless there is evidence showing an increased likelihood that the error may be repeated.

3. The “potential to lead to a more significant safety concern” speaks to the realistic potential that the condition introduced by the performance deficiency would eventually progress to the point of adversely affecting a cornerstone objective if left uncorrected.

c. Is the performance deficiency associated with one of the cornerstone attributes and did the performance deficiency adversely affect the associated cornerstone objective?

1. The first part of this question, “associated with the cornerstone attributes” prompts the inspector to identify which cornerstone attribute is associated with the performance deficiency.

2. When determining whether a cornerstone objective was adversely affected, the inspector must be able to show how the cornerstone objective was negatively impacted.

3. If the performance deficiency resulted in a meaningful and substantive reduction of margin with respect to a cornerstone objective then the performance deficiency adversely affected the cornerstone objective. The inspector should understand the impact of the deficiency, the available margin and use engineering judgement when trying to asses (either qualitatively or quantitatively) the “adverse effects” to cornerstone objectives. Note: IMC 0612 Appendix E examples provide perspective on the meaningful and substantive reduction of margin.

# 0612-06	REFERENCES

IMC 0310, “Aspects Within the Cross Cutting Areas”

IMC 0609, “Significance Determination Process”

END

# APPENDICES

Appendix B: Issue Screening Directions

Appendix E: Minor / More-than-Minor Screening Examples

Appendix G: Emergency Planning Cornerstone-Specific Supplemental Guidance for Appendix B Screening Figures 1 and 2

Issue Date: 08/09/23	1	0612

Attachment 1: Revision History for IMC 0612

Issue Date:  05/03/17 	Att1-1 	0612 

Issue Date: 08/09/23	Att1-1	0612