Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

FINAL REPORT
Differing Views Program Improvement Project
Rev. 1.3
Non-Concurrence Process and the
Differing Professional Opinion Program

Prepared by:
John Harrison
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Enforcement
November 2018

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

FINAL REPORT
Differing Views Program Improvement Project - Rev. 1.3
Executive Summary: To better serve its stakeholders, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s
(NRC) Office of Enforcement (OE) initiated a Differing Views Program (DVP) Improvement Project in
March 2018 to identify improvements to its Non-Concurrence Process (NCP) and its Differing
Professional Opinion Program (DPO). Led by one of the NRC’s Process Improvement Black Belts, this
project was highly structured and engaged appropriate stakeholders throughout the project. The
project began by achieving up-front clarity and alignment with key project participants on all critical
project parameters. This was followed by the project lead, and others supporting the project, reviewing
the most relevant documents among the vast amount of NCP and DPO documentation that already
existed. Recent assessments, surveys, and audits were all reviewed for the purpose of compiling
potential process-related concerns, along with compiling any suggestions to address those concerns.
These concerns and suggestions were then augmented by concerns and suggestions obtained through
interviews with both internal and external NCP and DPO stakeholders, and by written comments from
NRC management and staff. This set of concerns and suggestions was carefully studied and
systematically processed to develop an initial set of draft recommendations specifically crafted to
eliminate, or significantly reduce, the most important and the most commonly cited concerns. The
recommendations were then vetted by those most familiar with the NCP and DPO processes, and then
presented to senior management for comment. See Tables 4 and 5 for the official recommendations.
Implementation plans will be developed upon final review and approval of the recommendations.
Background: The NRC’s DVP is composed of: 1) the Non-Concurrence Process, which is described
by Management Directive (MD) 10.158; 2) the Differing Professional Opinion Program, which is
described by MD 10.159; and 3) the Open Door Policy, which is described by MD 10.160. OE is
responsible for managing the NCP and DPO processes and the Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer is responsible for managing the Open Door Policy. The Open Door Policy was not included in
this project.
In general, an NCP1 is submitted when someone involved in creating or reviewing a draft document
decides to formally raise a differing view on that document when it is routed for concurrence. A DPO is
submitted to formally raise a differing view associated with an already established position. Refer to the
NCP and DPO MDs for more specific information.
In response to feedback from internal and external NCP and DPO stakeholders, OE initiated an effort in
March 2018, to identify improvements to NCP and DPO. This report describes that effort and includes
recommendations, based on extensive stakeholder involvement, to increase both the effectiveness and
the efficiency of the NRC’s NCP and DPO processes.
Project Approach: This project was conducted in a structured manner and developed its final
recommendations through a systematic approach by utilizing effective process improvement tools to
produce consensus-based recommendations that were constructed to address the most important and
most frequently cited concerns. The following is a brief description of each phase of this project:
Phase 1: Stakeholder Alignment on Project Parameters
The first phase of this project was to achieve a high level of up-front clarity and alignment among key
project participants on all of the most important project parameters. A Project Charter (Attachment A)
was utilized for this purpose and includes the following:
1
Although NCP and DPO are initialisms for Non-Concurrence Process and Differing Professional Opinion, another common
use of NCP and DPO is that the staff “submit an NCP” or “submit a DPO” to initiate the respective process.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 2 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Overall Objective of the Project
Problem Statement
Project Description
Key Project Participants
Other Key Stakeholders
Project Scope
Project End Date
Key Deliverables

To summarize the Project Charter, the overall objective of this improvement project is to better serve
the NRC’s internal and external NCP and DPO stakeholders. There are two parts to achieve this. The
first part, which is in the scope of this project, is to recommend a set of practical consensus-based
recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the NCP and DPO processes. The
second part, which is not in the scope of this project, is to implement those recommendations.
Once alignment was achieved on the Project Charter, further alignment and buy-in was achieved
through the collaborative development of a detailed Project Plan which identified all of the activities
required to produce the agreed upon deliverables, the order in which they needed to be done, the
responsible party for each activity, and the time frame allowed for each activity. The project plan also
served to keep the project on track and to meet the agreed upon dates.
An important aspect of how this project was approached was to recognize and utilize the vast amount
of information that had already been generated on NCP and DPO, including a recent assessment and
multiple surveys. So for this initiative, instead of utilizing a working group to develop the information
needed to produce recommendations, the project lead, with the assistance of other OE staff, extracted
the appropriate information from the most relevant existing documents. This was then supplemented
with information obtained during interviews and from written comments. As interim project documents
were developed, the key project participants and consultants were effectively utilized to review them
and to provide feedback and direction relative to their respective area of expertise, responsibility, and
authority. The key project participants and consultants for this project included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

The Director, Office of Enforcement (Project Sponsor)
The Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement (Project Co-Sponsor)
The Branch Chief of the Concerns Resolution Branch, Office of Enforcement
The NCP and DPO Program Managers, Office of Enforcement
The Safety Culture and Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey subject matter experts, Office of
Enforcement
The Agency Allegation Advisor, Office of Enforcement
The staff lead for the NRC Safety Culture, Office of Chief Human Capital Officer
A Performance Improvement Specialist, Office of Enforcement
The National Nuclear Security Administration’s DPO contact, Department of Energy

Phase 2: Stakeholder Alignment on NCP and DPO Objectives
The next phase of this project was to achieve a broader and more precise alignment on the specific
objectives of NCP and DPO and how effectiveness and efficiency apply to those objectives. This
review also effectively served as a discovery phase which, among other things, informed the
development of the project’s interview questions. The documents that were reviewed included:
1. Management Directive 10.158, Non-Concurrence Process
2. Management Directive 10.159, Differing Professional Opinion Program
3. Management Directive 10.160, Open Door Policy
Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 3 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
4. 2018 Differing Views Program Assessment
5. Office of the Inspector General Audit of NRC’s Non-Concurrence Process, OIG-11-A-02
6. Office of the Inspector General Audit of NRC’s Differing Professional View/Differing Professional
Opinion Program, OIG-00-A-07
7. Study of Reprisal and Chilling Effect for Raising Mission-Related Concerns and Differing Views
at the NRC
8. 2014 Process Improvement Review of Differing Professional Opinion Process
9. 2014 Differing Views Program Assessment
10. 2014 Non-Concurrence Process Assessment
11. Safety Culture Continuous Learning and Improvement Services, Task Order 3, Differing Views
Processing Benchmarking report by LinkVisum Consulting Group dated March 13, 2013
12. NRC report titled “Analysis of Agency Programs Through Which Employees Can Raise
Concerns” dated 9/25/2012
13. Evaluation of Issue Resolution Systems, FocalPoint Consulting Group, September 30, 2010
A review of these documents and discussions with various stakeholders revealed that effectiveness
and efficiency, as they relate to NCP and DPO objectives, were not explicitly stated. To achieve a
more common understanding, a white paper titled “NCP and DPO Effectiveness and Efficiency”
(Attachment B) was developed and distributed prior to management interviews to facilitate discussions.
This was followed by distributing a statement of just the NCP and DPO objectives. Further discussion
with key project participants and senior managers resulted in further refinements and the following
definitions.
NCP and DPO Objectives:
•
•

To help inform the decisionmaking process, and
To provide a formal mechanism for staff to make their differing views known and be addressed.

With regard to these objectives, assume that a potential submitter has a “viable” differing view. For the
purposes of this example, a viable differing view is defined as a differing view, which under the right
conditions, would substantially change an imminent decision, a current position, or the basis for the
decision or position. In this example, the viable differing view would make the decision making process
more effective but only if: 1) The submitter actually chooses to raise the viable differing view through
the appropriate voluntary process, and 2) the process used to evaluate the viable differing view
concludes with an appropriate decision.
It is essential to the effectiveness of NCP and DPO that a submitter’s overall experience of either
process does not dissuade them or anyone else from attempting to inform the decision making process
in the future. With regard to the overall experience, some submitters may be dissuaded from
submitting future differing views because they do not trust that the process will conclude with an
appropriate decision, while others may be dissuaded because of their perceptions of potential negative
consequences. Therefore, it is essential that a reasonable attempt is made to facilitate the submitter’s
acceptance of the decision and that a reasonable attempt is made to provide a positive experience for
the submitter, or at least not a negative one.
Phase 3: Benchmarking
The next phase of this project was to benchmark other external organizations’ differing views programs
to potentially adopt any best practices that, if adopted by the NRC, would increase the effectiveness or
efficiency of NCP or DPO, thereby better serving the NRC and its stakeholders.
This project utilized a benchmarking report titled “Safety Culture Continuous Learning and Improvement
Services, Task Order 3, Differing Views Processing Benchmarking” by LinkVisum Consulting Group
dated March 13, 2013. This document contains the results of a comprehensive benchmarking effort on
Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 4 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
organizations with differing views programs that were deemed by LinkVisum to be relevant to the NRC.
More recently, the NRC’s reprisal working group reached out to NASA for additional information. The
benchmarked organizations were:
•
•
•
•

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
The Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization,
The Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and
Pfizer

Of particular interest were each organization’s applied “Best Practices” associated with the key factors
identified by LinkVisum as being necessary for effective differing view processes. Each of those Best
Practices is listed in Table 1 along with its applicability to the NRC’s NCP and DPO, and whether the
Best Practice was included in this project as an official recommendation.
Table 1: Benchmarked Organizations’ Best Practices and their applicability to the NRC
Recommend
Benchmarked Organization and cited
Applicability to NRC
as an NRC
“Best Practice”
improvement?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA offers an option to submit differing
views anonymously.
NASA utilizes an ombudsman.
NASA delineates between programmatic
authority and technical authority.

NASA has no performance measures
other than questions in their safety culture
surveys.

Anonymity would not apply to NCP. The
NRC already allows for an anonymous
DPO submittal.
An NRC ombudsman would likely
facilitate more creative, informal, and
positive resolutions to NCP and DPO.
The NRC delineates authorities and
responsibilities between the program
offices and regional offices which have
technical authority, and OE which has
programmatic authority.
The NRC already uses various surveys
to ask questions about its NCP and DPO
Program.

No

This would not be appropriate for the
NRC to adopt.
There is close alignment among senior
managers that we must allow
unrestricted entry into NCP and DPO.
The NRC has an Open Door Policy by
which any subject can be discussed.

No

Yes
No

No

Federal Aviation Administration
FAA only allows non-concurrence with
Management Directives.
FAA NC’s are limited to “serious
operational or legal concerns” or if there
are “substantive flaws in the process.”
FAA does have other avenues to report
unsatisfactory conditions including
drawings, docs, procedures, etc.
FAA has no performance measures other
than questions in their safety culture
surveys.

No
No

The NRC already uses various surveys
No
to ask questions about its NCP and DPO
Program.

Food and Drug Administration
FDA has an ombudsman. He is the focal
point for DPOs.
FDA has an option to raise issue to the
next level of management.

An NRC ombudsman would likely
Yes
facilitate more creative, informal, and
positive resolutions to NCP and DPO.
No
The NRC’s Open Door Policy already
allows any issue to be raised to any level
of management. DPO allows an appeal

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 5 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
Benchmarked Organization and cited
“Best Practice”

If a decision maker makes a decision
contrary to the recommendation, he must
write a memo explaining the rationale.
FDA has no performance measure except
through surveys.
FDA improved survey results due to
making differing opinions much more
visible.

Applicability to NRC
to the Executive Director for Operations
(EDO).
The rationale to support NCP and DPO
decisions is already included in the
respective NCP and DPO processes.
The NRC already uses various surveys
to ask questions about NCP and DPO.
This initiative recommends increased
transparency on the outcome of all
NCPs and DPOs.

Recommend
as an NRC
improvement?
No
No
Yes

Pfizer
Pfizer focuses on “compliance.”
Pfizer has an ombudsman.
Pfizer has multiple avenues, including an
Open Door policy to discuss compliance
issues.
Confidentiality is a priority to protect
employees.

The NRC’s NCP and DPO are
necessarily broader than compliance.
An NRC ombudsman would likely
facilitate more creative, informal, and
positive resolutions to NCP and DPO.
The NRC already has a sufficient
number of avenues including an Open
Door Policy.
For NCP, confidentiality is not a practical
option. However, an unsatisfactory NCP
outcome can be the subject of an
anonymous DPO.

No
Yes
No
No

Phase 4: Compilation of Concerns and Suggestions
The next phase of this project was to develop a comprehensive list of NCP and DPO problems, referred
to as “concerns” in this project, and any suggestions to address them. Concerns and suggestions for
this project were obtained from the following sources:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The 2018 Differing Views Program Assessment,
Information obtained during interviews with internal stakeholders,
Written comments submitted by internal stakeholders,
Information obtained during interviews with external stakeholders, and
Internal and external stakeholder comments resulting from document reviews, briefings,
presentations, meetings, conversations, etc.

Periodic assessments of the NCP and the DPO Program are required per their respective Management
Directives. The 2018 Differing Views Program Assessment contains extensive information and is the
most recent document on NCP and DPO activities. It includes relevant NCP and DPO Safety Culture
and Climate Survey data; relevant NCP and DPO Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey data; and data
from a survey that specifically targeted staff who were directly involved with NCPs and DPOs, which
also includes their extensive written comments. In addition to containing a variety of concerns, the
2018 assessment also includes recommendations, many of which are addressed, in whole or in part, by
this DVP Improvement Project.
To get a representative cross-section from those involved in or affected by NCP and DPO, this DVP
Improvement Project interviewed senior managers from all regional offices and across NRC
headquarters; multiple representatives of each different type of NCP and DPO role; and respondents to
a May 31st EDO Update soliciting feedback on the programs; and multiple external stakeholders.
Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 6 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
Internal stakeholders included:
• the current and former Executive Director for Operations,
• the Deputy Executive Directors for Operations and the Assistant to Operations,
• all Regional Administrators and some of their deputies,
• all Office Directors whose offices had been involved with NCPs or DPOs, and some of their
deputies,
• all NRC staff who requested to be interviewed as the result of the EDO announcement (and who
subsequently made themselves available), and
• NRC staff who were recommended by others to be interviewed.
External stakeholders included representatives from:
• the Nuclear Energy Institute,
• the Union of Concerned Scientists,
• Duke Energy,
• Dominion Energy, and
• The Department of Energy.
At the conclusion of this phase, over 400 concerns were captured along with over 200 suggestions.
Phase 5: Observations and Insights
Important suggestions and insightful observations were made by many interviewees during the initial
phase of the interviews. Questions related to those suggestions and observations were added to
subsequent interviews which revealed a high level of alignment on the following:
1. Theoretically, even if an NCP or DPO never changed an imminent decision, a current position, or
the basis for either, the NRC would still have these programs because of the value that the NRC
places on providing the staff with a mechanism for having their differing views expressed and
responded to in a formal manner and, if requested by the submitter, potentially made publically
available.
2. The NRC must continue to allow the staff to avail themselves of the NCP and DPO processes
consistent with the current eligibility criteria. That is, entry into these processes should not be made
more restrictive by this improvement project. Rather, once the NCP or DPO process is initiated, the
process must be made more flexible to allow for easier, less resource intensive dispositions
appropriate to the issues raised.
3. The resources expended on any given NCP or DPO should be commensurate with the overall
importance of the issues raised.
4. The NRC makes thousands of regulatory decisions every year and the number of times that
differing views are discussed, addressed, and resolved during the normal course of developing
decisions, without having the need to use the Open Door Policy, NCP, or DPO, is not measurable.
5. The number of NCPs and DPOs can increase for good or bad reasons and the number can
decrease for good or bad reasons. Therefore, increases or decreases in NCPs or DPOs is not a
measure of their effectiveness. A better measure would be to gauge participants’ adherence to the
NRC’s ISOCCER values, iCORE, and Leadership Model at the conclusion of each NCP and DPO.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 7 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 8 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
Phase 6: Data Preparation and Analysis
The analysis started by assigning the following attributes to each of the 400+ concerns:
•
•
•
•

Whether the concern was an effectiveness concern, an efficiency concern, both, or neither.
Whether the concern was an NCP concern, a DPO concern, both, or neither.
The source of each concern (which was encrypted and remained confidential).
Each NCP role and each DPO role performed by the person who provided the comment (per
the NCP and DPO Master Tracking system). The roles used are shown in the following table:

Table 2: NCP and DPO Roles
NCP Roles:
•
Senior Management
•
NCP Submitter
•
NCP Supervisor
•
NCP Coordinator
•
NCP Approver
•
NCP Other

•
•
•
•
•

DPO Roles:
Senior Management
DPO Submitter
DPO Panel Member
DPO Decision Maker
DPO Other

After assigning attributes, categories were developed based on the characteristics of the concerns and
each concern was placed into one or more of the following 24 categories.
Table 3: Categories of Concerns
1 Training
2 DV avoidance
3 Early communication
4 Alternative solutions
5 The screening process
6 Submitter qualifications
7 Issue clarity and scope
8 Process flexibility
9 Process guidance
10 Roles and responsibilities
11 Trust/confidence
12 Management/peer/legal support

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

OE support and management oversight
Accountability
Program organizational location
Reviewer/decider qualifications
Independence
Objectivity
Review quality
Post-submittal communication
Level of effort compared to importance
Overall effort to address DVs
Duration of DV resolution
Experience and perceptions

Once the categories and attributes were assigned, process data from the NCP and DPO tracking
systems were reviewed to see if it validated any concerns. Concerns related to the timeliness of NCP
and DPO were validated by the data. No other process data, specific to the other concerns, is
contained in the tracking systems.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 9 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
The next step was to generate various types of data depictions to reveal insights into relationships
between the 400+ concerns. One of the more revealing data depictions was the large variation in the
number and types of concerns expressed between submitters and decision makers which is shown
below. This set of pie charts shows that the NCP and DPO submitters are primarily concerned with the
effectiveness of the NCP and DPO processes whereas NCP Approvers and DPO Decision makers are
primarily concerned with the efficiency of the processes. This was the biggest challenge of this project.
The processes need to be more effective and yet they also need to be accomplished with fewer staff
hours.
Figure 2: NCP/DPO Submitter Concerns vs. Approver/Decision maker Concerns

The pie chart above shows that NCP submitters have
significantly more concerns about the effectiveness of
the NCP process than its efficiency.

The pie chart above shows that NCP approvers have
significantly more concerns about the efficiency of the
NCP process than its effectiveness.

The pie chart above shows that DPO submitters have
significantly more concerns about the effectiveness of
the DPO process than its efficiency.

The pie chart above shows that DPO decision makers
have significantly more concerns about the efficiency
of the DPO process than its effectiveness.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 10 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
Another aspect of the NCP and DPO concerns is the multi-layered cause and effect relationships. That
is, process participants must not create a negative or unsatisfactory experience for the submitter
because it may cause a potential submitter to choose to not raise a potentially important differing view
in the future. Moreover, if the negative experience is learned of, or observed by, other staff, they too
may choose to not raise a potentially important differing view. For example, the Relationship Diagram
below shows that to improve the level of “Willingness to submit a DPO,” shown in the orange box, the
contributors to that orange box, shown by the yellow boxes, would also have to be improved. A number
of these multi-layered relationships were analyzed.
Figure 3: Relationship of DPO Effectiveness Concerns
Relationship Diagram – Categories of DPO Effectiveness Concerns
Early communication

Screening process
Independence of review
Trust of people/process
Objectivity of review
Willingness
to submit a DPO

Reviewer qualifications
Accountability

Negativity

Mgmt/peer/legal support
OE support/oversight
Process/MDs clarity and
flexibility

Potential Causes of Reduced Decision-making Effectiveness

Concerns from: 2018 DV Assessment, Interviews, Written Comments

Issue clarity and scope

Roles and responsibilities

DPO duration

Phase 7: Development of the Official Recommendations
The next stage of this project was to tabulate the 200+ suggestions made by the interviewees,
comment submitters, documents, etc., and determine which of the 24 categories of concerns each
suggestion would likely help solve. This systematic approach of using stakeholders’ suggested
solutions to solve actual stakeholder problems resulted in multiple potential solutions for each concern
category. Combining all similar, realistic, and practical solutions for each concern category, consistent
with those areas of high alignment previously described, yielded a draft list of recommendations.
The next stage of this project was to vet the draft recommendations. Multiple iterations of review and
comment were performed by those most familiar with the NCP and DPO processes. The vetting
process included reviews by:
•
•
•

The NCP and DPO Program Managers and Branch Chief
OE’s Safety Culture and FEVS subject matter experts
The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer’s (OCHCO’s) lead for NRC Safety Culture and
Open Door Policy
Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 11 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
• Agency Allegations Advisor
• OE Office Director and Deputy
•
Through this initial vetting process, the draft recommendations became official recommendations. The
official recommendations were then presented to:
•
•
•

The Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO) prior to and in preparation for
presenting the official recommendations at an Agency Mission Meeting (AMM)
Office Directors and Regional Administrators during the following AMM
OEDO subsequent to the AMM

The Official Recommendations:
The following tables include the Official Recommendations developed by this DVP Improvement
Project. Table 4, “Transformative Recommendations” lists the recommendations that are expected to
have the biggest positive impact on increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of NCP and DPO.
Table 5, “Recommendations on change management, minor process changes, and process
documentation,” contains recommendations that, among other things, need to be implemented to
ensure a smooth transition to the improved NCP and DPO processes.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 12 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
Table 4 Transformative Recommendations
#

Key Words

1 DPO process
flexibilities

2 Delegation

Official Recommendation
to address Area of Concern

NCP,
DPO,
or
Both

Basis for Recommendation

Revise the DPO process to allow for a graded approach DPO DPO process flexibilities, based on the priority of the DPO, is
the primary way to reduce the number of staff hours required to
through process flexibilities. The process flexibilities
disposition a DPO. There is a very high level of alignment
are based on the priority of the issue as determined
among the NRC’s senior leaders, and others, that entry into
during the recommended evaluation phase (described
DPO (and NCP) should not be made more restrictive by this
by Recommendation #5.)
initiative. Instead, once a submittal has been accepted, there
must be process flexibilities afforded to the decision makers to
Recommended DPO Process Flexibilities:
disposition DPOs (and NCPs) relative to the issue’s priority.
a. Allow the DPO decision maker, including the EDO for
To best serve our internal and external stakeholders, decisions
DPO appeals, to process a DPO via a summary
must be timely and sufficiently informed and have an adequate
disposition, in lieu of a panel, if it is determined during
basis. If an issue contains little or no merit, either because it is
the recommended evaluation phase, or otherwise, that
not significant or because it’s a repeated issue, with little or no
a more extensive review is not required.
new information, the decision maker must have the authority to
disposition that issue easily and quickly. Similarly, if a new
For example, a panel may not be needed if the issue is:
issue can be properly reviewed by just one person, then a
1) a repeat issue, 2) there is no new information
3-person panel should not be required.
relevant to the issue, and 3) the decision maker is
confident that a previous review was thorough and
The NRC strives to accomplish its Mission in the most effective
reached the appropriate conclusion(s). A summary
and efficient manner. Because the NRC has limited resources,
disposition would not disallow an appeal.
it must apply them to the most important matters, recognizing
that not all issues are at the same level of importance and,
b. Allow the DPO decision maker to form a panel with
therefore, the NRC should not apply the same amount of
fewer than three people when the evaluation factors are
resources to each one. NCP and DPO need to be structured to
favorable to this approach (as determined during the
more effectively and efficiently arrive at the right decision (while
recommended evaluation phase, or otherwise), and the
welcoming and appreciating information submitted via DPO
panel member(s) possess sufficient technical expertise
and NCP as part of the decision making process).
and independence to make appropriate
recommendations.
a. Allow an Office Director and a Regional Administrator DPO The workload of DPOs needs to be distributed among other
qualified individuals in order to improve the timeliness of DPO
to delegate DPO cases to their deputies.
dispositions.
b. Allow a Senior Level advisor to chair a DPO panel.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 13 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

#

Key Words

Official Recommendation
to address Area of Concern

NCP,
DPO,
or
Both

Basis for Recommendation

3 “Ombudsman-like” Apply a greater level of expertise in the soft skills, such Both With regard to accomplishing our Mission, the two scenarios
that we must avoid are: 1) a potential submitter who has a
as using an ombudsman, to prevent, address, and
soft skills
viable differing view but chooses to not raise it via NCP, DPO,
resolve conflict; to coach NCP and DPO participants; to
or otherwise, and 2) a submitter who chooses to submit a
informally seek the resolution of non-process and nonviable differing view, but the process fails to result in a change
technical issues among staff, managers, and
to a decision, position, or the basis for either one.
executives; and to identify and eliminate the causes of
negative experiences and negative perceptions
Interviews conducted during this initiative revealed that the
associated with the NCP and DPO Programs.
likelihood of a submitter choosing to not use NCP or DPO
appears to be related to their perceived level of the negativity
Looking at this a different way, a major challenge of the
associated with NCP and DPO, of which the perceived level of
NCP and DPO can be the interactions among the
ineffectiveness of the NCP and DPO processes is a main
individuals involved in the processes. Any reluctance to
contributor. Therefore, someone highly skilled in being able to
submit an NCP or DPO needs to be overcome and we
prevent and resolve any negative experiences and eliminate
need to err on the side of more expertise in this area
negative perceptions is essential. Of all the recommendations
than what some may see as necessary. It is essential
associated with NCP and DPO, the expert application of soft
that the perceptions of NCP and DPO become
skills would improve, by far, the greatest number of areas of
realistically positive.
concern and would have the greatest overall positive impact.
In addition to enhancing communications throughout
Specifically, the expert application of soft skills is expected to
the NCP and DPO processes, the ombudsman would
improve the following areas of concern: 1) lack of early
casually meet with the submitter, and other process
communication, 2) not sufficiently seeking alternative solutions,
participants, upon the disposition of each NCP or DPO,
3) submittal screening issues, 4) submitter motives and
to determine how satisfied each individual was at each
submission quality, 5) achieving greater and earlier clarity of
stage of the process and what, if any, enhancements
the issues, 6) improving trust, 7) increasing support and
should be made.
accountability, 8) resolving issues with independence and bias,
and 10) enhancing communications throughout the process.
Using an ombudsman was suggested by many interviewees;
three of the four benchmarked organizations, NASA, FDA and
Pfizer, utilize a position designated as “ombudsman”; and so
does the Department of Energy. Using an ombudsman at the
NRC in conjunction with a CAP was recommended by
FocalPoint and recommended in an NRC report titled “Analysis
of Agency Programs Through Which Employees Can Raise
Concerns” dated 9/25/2012.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 14 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

#

Key Words

4 Pre-submittal
resolution

Official Recommendation
to address Area of Concern
Upon becoming aware of an imminent NCP or DPO,
OE should:
a) be more pro-active in engaging the appropriate
parties to resolve the differing view through alternative,
less resource-intensive means such as informal
discussions, meetings, the Open Door policy, etc., and

NCP,
DPO,
or
Both

Basis for Recommendation

Both One of the best ways to minimize the number of staff-hours
associated with resolving differing views (and potentially
minimize conflict) is to resolve the issues prior to reaching the
NCP or DPO stage.
The “NRC’s Principles of Good Regulation,” states in part,
“Where several effective alternatives are available, the option
which minimizes the use of resources should be adopted.”

b) consider using an expert facilitator, mediator, or
Using a facilitator, mediator, or ombudsman would likely result
ombudsman (see Recommendation #3) to potentially
in an earlier understanding of the involved parties’ interests and
increase the number of differing views resolved early in
allow for more creative resolutions and earlier negotiations.
the process and in lieu of NCP and DPO.
5 Evaluation phase to Upon accepting a DPO, OE should coordinate an effort DPO The DPO Management Directive states that the DPO will be
processed, in part, according to items 1 through 3 listed in the
achieve up-front with the submitter and necessary subject matter experts
recommendation plus consideration of the priority of other work
(and/or use a Tiger Team described below) to quickly
clarity
activities affecting the availability of participants, which will be
understand the following in order to advise the decision
considered during the development of a review plan. This
maker and to inform the review plan:
evaluation will form the basis for the recommended process
flexibilities by establishing a priority, or level of importance, of
1) Importance of prompt action on the issue,
the DPO.
2) safety significance of the issue,
3) complexity of the issue, and
4) all areas of technical expertise needed to resolve
each technical issue.
6 Tiger Team to
Form a Tiger Team for each DPO from a list of highly
DPO This recommendation addresses multiple categories of
concerns from both management and staff and is expected to
perform evaluation qualified and highly respected individuals in each
have a substantial positive impact on the effectiveness,
region/office to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of
including timeliness, and the efficiency of DPO processing.
the issues, scope and any other important
Many senior managers suggested utilizing a “Tiger Team,”
circumstances. The Tiger Team could also help figure
“Surge Team,” or a “Nimble Team” to quickly achieve up-front
out how to best resolve each technical issue and to
clarity on the issues being raised so that the agency can
potentially help facilitate the resolution process.
prioritize its activities and apply the appropriate resources to
According to Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_team. A tiger
resolve the issues in a timely manner. Utilizing highly qualified
team is a diversified group of experts brought together for a single project,
and highly respected individuals would also address many
need, or event. They are usually assigned to investigate, solve, build, or
submitters’ concerns about the technical adequacy and
recommend possible solutions to unique situations or problems.
objectivity of the reviews along with those reviews leading to
unbiased outcomes.
Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 15 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

#

Key Words

Official Recommendation
to address Area of Concern

NCP,
DPO,
or
Both

Basis for Recommendation

7 Training –
The agency should consider enhanced training in
Both Based on the 400+ concerns gathered from interviews and
program documents, a root cause of many of the biggest
interpersonal
skills
and
conflict
resolution
for
individuals
Interpersonal and
problems associated with NCP and DPO is a lack of
Conflict Resolution who are in a role that could be involved in NCPs and
interpersonal skills, and a lack of conflict resolution techniques
DPOs, especially for NCPs and DPOs that may include
– which can lead to avoidance and decision making delays. In
safety-related issues or that have high levels of interest
the interest of better serving our internal and external
among external stakeholders.
stakeholders with more timely decisions, we need to learn how
to proactively resolve conflict quickly through more highly
developed interpersonal skills.

Table 5: Recommendations on change management, minor process changes, and process documentation
#

Key Words

8 Guidance - MDs

9 Guidance – “Best
Practice Guide”

Official Recommendations

NCP,
DPO,
or
Both

Basis for Recommendation

OE should simplify and clarify Management Directive
Both Having clear, concise, accurate and consistent guidance is
fundamental to operational effectiveness and efficiency.
10.158 (NCP) and Management Directive 10.159
(DPO). Each MD needs to: a) clarify the objectives of
NCP and DPO, b) clarify timeliness expectations, c) be
consistent throughout and be consistent with all other
sources of guidance, d) eliminate duplication of
information, e) clarify roles and responsibilities,
authorities, expectations, etc., and f) incorporate any
changes as the result of this initiative.
Develop a “Best Practice Guide” to effectively resolve Both The issues and circumstances associated with each NCP and
each DPO can vary greatly and can include varying degrees of
differing views, including doing so prior to entering NCP
conflict. Consequently, necessary and prudent actions taken to
or DPO. This would include best practices such as
resolve one NCP may not apply to another, so mandating
having the decision maker meet with the submitter,
specific actions in a Management Directive for every issue or
adding “alternative views” to documents, etc. The
circumstance would not be appropriate. Therefore, a “Best
Guide would also include role-specific best practices,
Practice Guide” may be the best way to convey best practices
samples of good submissions and summaries, and
for the different types of issues and circumstances.
examples of circumstances that are either not
appropriate for NCP or DPO or better handled in other
ways including the Open Door policy.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 16 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

#

Key Words

Official Recommendations

NCP,
DPO,
or
Both

Basis for Recommendation

10 Training – process Review the NCP and DPO iLearn training to make it
Both Updating the NCP and DPO iLearn training to incorporate the
recommendations of this initiative and making it consistent with
consistent
with
the
NCP
and
DPO
Management
and expectations
their respective Management Directives is fundamental to
Directives and include any other information,
having effective and efficient NCP and DPO processes.
expectations, “calibrations,” etc., as the result of this
initiative.
For each NCP and DPO, require the submitter to
11 Submitter
Both Both Management Directives state, “Ensure that the NCP [or
DPO process] is executed effectively, efficiently, and timely,
Responsibilities, indicate High, Medium, or Low for each of the following:
consistent with the (1) importance of prompt action on the
Up front clarity
issue, (2) safety significance of the issue, (3) complexity of the
1) Importance of prompt action on the issue,
issue, and (4) priority of other work activities affecting the
2) safety significance of the issue, and
availability of participants.” Section A of the NCP form requires
3) complexity of the issue.
the submitter to address “Potential Impact on Mission” but
having the submitter address the first three issues would add
Also require the submitter to list each area of technical
up-front clarity and better inform the OE PM and other
expertise needed to resolve each technical issue.
stakeholders of the overall importance of the differing view.
12 Kick-off Meeting, Upon completing the evaluation, OE, as the
DPO Having a kick-off meeting with the submitter, all the other
participants, and the decision maker will address numerous
program/process owner, should conduct a kick-off
concerns.
meeting that includes the submitter, decision maker,
Review Plan,
technical reviewers, and any others who have already
Up front clarity,
BPI Best Practice: Use the highest level Senior Executive
been identified as being needed. The objectives of the
willing to kick off the meeting by addressing the team, thanking
meeting are to present the evaluation and agree on how
Timeliness,
the submitter and the other participants, emphasizing the
to proceed. This would include a discussion on roles
importance of respectful and professional cooperation,
and responsibilities, other expectations, appropriate
Facilitator
reaching the right resolutions, etc. The OE PMs will provide
process flexibilities, a plan to resolve and disposition
the Senior Executive suggested talking points in advance of the
the issue, milestones, target dates, available resources,
meeting for their consideration.
etc.
This may be a good opportunity to use an NRC
facilitator.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 17 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

#

Key Words

13 NCP kick-out
clarification
OE coordination

Official Recommendations

NCP,
DPO,
or
Both

Basis for Recommendation

Require an NCP document signer to coordinate with the NCP Clearly, the regional and program offices have the authority to
make timely technical decisions. However, “how well” the
Director of the Office of Enforcement when the
overall NCP process serves the needs of all of those involved
document signer plans to sign the subject document
in or affected by the process is owned by the process owner.
prior to completing the NCP evaluation.

Therefore, coordination with the Director of the Office of
Currently, Section IV. B of the Handbook to MD 10.158,
Enforcement should be required when there are compelling
NRC Non-Concurrence Process, allows the document
reasons to issue a document prior to formally completing the
signer to sign the “NCP’d” document prior to completing
evaluation of the NCP.
the NCP evaluation if there is a “compelling reason.”
14 NCP & DPO New Upon approval of this project’s recommendations,
Both A swim-lane process map is a highly effective tool for quickly
learning processes such as NCP and DPO. Swim-lane
develop a swim-lane process map for NCP and for
Process Maps
process maps show all of the process steps in sequence along
DPO, incorporate the approved recommendations from
with the responsible role for each step. For individuals who
this initiative, execute the new processes as pilots,
have not been involved in the NCP or DPO process, a swimrefine as needed, and then institutionalize the
lane process map would allow them to easily see the overall
processes in the respective Management Directives.
process, what their specific responsibilities are, where they fit
into the overall process, who they interact with, where those
interactions occur, and all other roles involved in the process
along with the responsibilities of each other role. Process
maps are standard depictions for organizations that perform at
high levels of operational effectiveness and efficiency.
15 Communications Develop a communications plan to roll out the new NCP Both A Communications Plan is essential for a smooth transition
Plan
and DPO processes resulting from this project.
from the current state to an improved future state.
16 Reduce others’
During the course of processing NCPs and DPOs, OE Both As the owner of the NCP and DPO programs and processes,
OE should continue to see if it can better serve its stakeholders
Administrative
should continue to identify any opportunities to reduce
by centralizing any administrative tasks from the technical
Burden
the administrative burden on the technical
organizations (except for items that the individual offices can
organizations. For example, consider using OE’s
do more efficiently and where consistency among orgs is not
Administrative Assistants to perform the ADAMSimportant).
related activities.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 18 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

#

Key Words

17 Screening and
Alternative
Solutions

18 Post-disposition
transparency
19 RACI

Official Recommendations

NCP,
DPO,
or
Both

Basis for Recommendation

a) OE should become familiar with the other NRC
Both a) Interviewees stated that issues have been allowed into OE’s
DVP that should have been redirected to other programs
programs and processes that resolve issues to the
(although it is not known how many times this has already
extent that it can redirect NCP and DPO issues to other,
occurred or may occur). This one-time investment of hours by
more appropriate, programs and processes for
OE’s PMs along with the necessary interactions with the other
resolution.
programs’ PMs would likely result in a variety of tangible and
intangible benefits.
b) During the screening process for NCPs, OE should
b) It is highly ineffective and inefficient to initiate an NCP
also confirm that the subject document contains the
process, for example, when the issue ends up having to be
regulatory decision being questioned (instead of just
processed as a DPO.
being referenced).
Place all NCP and DPO follow-up actions on an internal Both In the interest of transparency, accountability, and keeping
web page along with a regularly updated status. Track
interested parties informed, OE should post all NCP and DPO
which NCPs and DPOs made a positive difference.
follow-up actions and their status on an internal web page.
Once the NCP and DPO recommendations associated Both A lack of communications has been cited to occur throughout
with this project have been approved, collaborate with
the NCP and DPO processes to the detriment of both the
all stakeholder groups to agree on the types of
effectiveness and efficiency of both processes. A lack of early
information required by each stakeholder group, the
communications can cause missed opportunities to take
timing of that information, who is responsible for
advantage of more efficient alternate solutions to resolve
informing each stakeholder group, and the method by
differing views and can lead to a prolonged lack of issue clarity,
which that information is to be communicated.
which can further cause expending excessive resources on
issues outside of the actual differing views. A lack of postBPI Best Practice: Develop a RACI chart to show who
submittal communication can contribute to further
is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed
misunderstandings and a failure to resolve the submitter’s
actual differing views.
for each process step.

20 Performance data Collect data regarding the number of hours expended Both This would yield level-of-effort performance data. A LinkVisum
best practice is to collect quantitative data.
for each NCP and DPO. This could be accomplished by
issuing a feedback questionnaire to applicable
individuals upon closure of a case.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 19 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Attachment A - PROJECT CHARTER
Differing Views Program Improvement Project
Overall Objective: To better serve its internal and external stakeholders, the Differing Views Program
Improvement Project seeks to identify improvements to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of
the Agency’s Non-Concurrence Process (NCP) and Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) Program.
Problem Statement: In support of its Mission, and as part of its decisionmaking process, the NRC
strives to establish and maintain an environment that encourages all NRC employees and contractors
to raise concerns and differing views promptly without fear of reprisal through various mechanisms.
Two of these mechanisms are the NCP and the DPO Program. Feedback from internal and external
stakeholder of the NCP and DPO Program indicates opportunities for improvement.
Project Description: This project will deliver a set of practical recommendations to Senior
Management designed to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the NCP and the DPO Program.
This will be accomplished through analysis of existing information combined with information obtained
through recurring communications with former program participants, affected line management, the
NCP and DPO Program Manager and Program Owner, external counterparts, and other stakeholders
as needed. Instead of a dedicated working group, this project will engage the sponsor, project
consultants, and others as necessary to produce consensus driven decisions and recommendations.
Project Sponsor: Anne Boland, NCP and DPO Program Owner, and Paul Peduzzi, Co-Sponsor.
Project Lead: John Harrison, Performance Improvement Specialist.
Project Consultants:
Paul Peduzzi, Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement.
Dave Solorio, Chief, OE Concerns Resolution Branch.
Gladys Figueroa and Ian Gifford, OE NCP and DPO Program Managers.
Catherine Thompson and Diane Sieracki, OE Safety Culture & FEVS subject matter experts.
Lisamarie Jarriel, Agency Allegation Advisor. Lisa will be engaged on an as-needed basis.
Jason Lising, OCHCO staff lead for NRC safety culture.
Tom Hiltz, Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration’s DPO contact.
Other Key Stakeholders: (See the Stakeholder Listing for more detail)
NCP and DPO submitters, process participants, their line management, OEDO, and the Commission;
other agency’s differing views program managers and subject matter experts; licensees; other public
stakeholders; and NTEU.
Included in scope:
1. A review and analysis of all pertinent information, both existing and developed during the course of
this project, associated with the Agency’s NCP and DPO Program.
2. Developing a set of consensus-based recommendations, designed to increase the effectiveness
and efficiency of the NCP and DPO Program.
Not Included in Scope:
1. OCHCO’s Open Door Policy.
2. Issues related to employee behaviors and leadership models.
3. Implementing the recommendations developed during this project.
Project Schedule: Deliver official recommendations by 08/31/2018. See the Project Plan for details.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 20 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
Key Deliverables:
1. Project Roles and Responsibilities.
2. Project Plan and Schedule.
3. Recommendations to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the NCP and DPO Program.

Attachment B - NCP and DPO Effectiveness & Efficiency
Differing Views Program Improvement Project
Background: To better serve its internal and external stakeholders2, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s (NRC’s) Differing Views Program Improvement Project seeks to identify improvements to
increase the level of effectiveness and efficiency of the Non-Concurrence Process3 (NCP) and the
Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) Programs. Management Directive 10.158, “NRC NonConcurrence Process,” dated March 14, 2014, and Management Directive 10.159, “NRC Differing
Professional Opinion Program,” dated August 11, 2015, discuss the programs.
Purpose: Program documents do not explicitly define the terms “effectiveness” and “efficiency,” as
they apply to the NCP and DPO Programs. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to help achieve
greater understanding, and closer alignment, on the precise meaning of these terms with regard to the
NCP and DPO Programs. Early alignment on the desired outcomes for improvements is an essential
precursor to virtually all subsequent project activities.
Effectiveness: As stated in the NRC’s 2018 – 2022 Strategic Plan, “effectiveness” is “The degree to
which the outcome of an activity, process, or program contributes to achieving the agency’s strategic
goals, objectives, or strategies.” Each of the management directives for these programs indicates that
the intended outcome of the NCP and DPO Programs is to improve the agency’s decisionmaking
process. This implies that the effectiveness of the NCP and DPO Programs is the degree to which the
NCP and DPO Programs improve the agency’s decisionmaking process.
The primary way that both programs are intended to improve the agency’s decisionmaking process is
by formally capturing and then fully considering new or additional information that may not have already
been included during the decisionmaking process. This directly supports the statement in the NRC’s
Principles of Good Regulation4 that “Final decisions must be based on objective, unbiased
assessments of all information [emphasis added], and must be documented with reasons explicitly
stated.”
Another important consideration is that the NCP and DPO Programs are voluntarily initiated.
Therefore, these programs may not be fully effective at providing new or additional information if the
staff is either unaware of these programs or choose not to use them. Therefore, increasing the
effectiveness of the NCP and DPO Programs may also include increasing the staff’s awareness and
understanding of these programs.
The NCP and DPO Programs also include processes that directly involve or indirectly affect various
internal and external stakeholders. Therefore, this project will also seek to identify improvements that
will result in these programs better serving their stakeholders.
Efficiency: As stated in the NRC’s 2018 – 2022 Strategic Plan, “efficiency” is “The degree to which the
resources needed to produce an outcome can be minimized without reducing the outcome’s
effectiveness.” This concept is not straightforward for the NCP and DPO Programs because, ideally,
2
3
4

For this project, “stakeholder” is applied in its broadest sense. It includes all those involved in, affected by, or
otherwise interested in, the NCP and DPO Programs and their processes.
Depending on the context, the NCP is sometimes referred to as a program.
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/values.html

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 21 of 22

 Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information
the desired outcome is a fully informed and properly documented decision, and being able to achieve
that outcome by using equally effective methods other than an NCP or DPO may be more efficient.
This is consistent with the “Efficiency” section of the “NRC’s Principles of Good Regulation,” which it
states, in part, “Where several effective alternatives are available, the option which minimizes the use
of resources should be adopted.” This is also consistent with the first objective in the NCP and DPO
management directives, which is to “Promote early discussion and consideration of differing views,”
presumably to reduce the need to enter into a more resource-intensive NCP or DPO.
Therefore, this project will seek to identify improvements in two different areas of efficiency. The first is
related to the process by which the NRC seeks to use alternative, less resource-intensive solutions,
thereby reducing the need to engage the NCP or DPO processes. The second area of efficiency is
related to using the NCP or DPO processes if other less resource-intensive solutions are either not
available or ineffective.
Other Considerations: In addition to the general areas of effectiveness and efficiency described
above, this project will also seek to identify improvements related to the following specific objectives
included in the management directives for either the NCP or the DPO Program, or both:
•

Ensure that the NCP and DPO processes are executed effectively, efficiently, and in a timely
manner, consistent with the (1) importance of prompt action on the issue, (2) safety significance of
the issue, (3) complexity of the issue, and (4) priority of other work activities affecting the
availability of participants.

•

Provide that a DPO is subjected to a thorough and impartial review by an independent review
panel of employees who are knowledgeable in the DPO subject area.

•

Recognize employees directly involved in an NCP or DPO when the outcome results in a valuable
contribution to the agency.

Conclusion: To have a highly effective and efficient Differing Views Program, it is first necessary to
identify, and then achieve close alignment on, precisely all of the areas in which that program is to be
improved and made more effective and efficient. That is the primary purpose of this paper. To that
end, if staff members are aware of any other areas not already addressed in this paper in which they
expect or desire the NCP and DPO Programs to be more effective or efficient, they should make those
known during this stage of the project. Staff insights into this matter are greatly appreciated.

Official Use Only – Sensitive Internal Information

Page 22 of 22