**NRC INSPECTION MANUAL** NMSS/IMNS

INSPECTION PROCEDURE 40002

INSPECTIONS TO REVIEW ALLEGATIONS

PROGRAM APPLICABILITY: 2800

40002-01 INSPECTION OBJECTIVES

To conduct an inspection, by Headquarters or regional staff, to review
and resolve issues raised in an allegation. The inspection may be a
special inspection dedicated to the allegation, or a routine inspection,
part of which is devoted to allegation issues.

40002-02 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

02.01 Prior to conducting the inspection, the allegation must have been
reviewed by an Allegation Review Board (ARB), and a decision made to
review the issues raised in the allegation by inspection rather than by
another option, such as referring the matter to the licensee for
resolution. The decision to devote a special inspection to the
allegation or to review the issues during a routine inspection will
generally be made by the ARB.

02.02 Allegations received during a routine inspection or reactive
inspection should be immediately reported by the inspector to the
regional/office management. With management=s approval, the inspection
should continue in accordance with this Inspection Procedure.

02.03 On occasion, an allegation may primarily be reviewed by the Office
of Investigations (OI) and the inspector provides technical support. As
assigned by the ARB, the OI interviews should be reviewed to determine
if the alleger identified any new concerns. The Office of Allegation
Coordinator (OAC) should be notified in writing of the results of the
review of the OI interviews.

02.04 Allegations that appear to involve complex issues or significant
safety, security, or confidentiality issues should be assigned to a
senior inspector, if possible. Other allegations may be assigned to
senior or non-senior inspectors, as appropriate. The ARB may make
recommendations regarding the appropriate nature of the allegation
review.

02.05 Inspections to review and resolve allegations are to be conducted
in a manner similar to that used for any routine inspection. The
inspector must not inform the licensee that the inspection is being
conducted to review an allegation unless instructed to do so by the ARB.
The inspection should not focus too narrowly on the issues raised in the
allegation, but should include the general area of the licensee\'s
program within which the alleged activities occurred or failed to occur.

02.06 Matters of confidentiality are preferably settled prior to the
inspection, and the inspector should clearly understand the alleger=s
confidentiality status and whether the alleger has authorized the NRC to
release the alleger=s identity. The inspector should also be aware of
procedures used to safeguard allegation documents, to communicate with
the alleger and the licensee, and to address other matters discussed in
Management Directive (MD) 8.8, AManagement of Allegations. AHowever,
when immediate response is warranted based on safety significance or
other considerations, the ARB may decide to send an inspector before
confidentiality issues are resolved.

40002-03 INSPECTION GUIDANCE

[General Guidance]{.underline}

Definitions and other guidance involving specific aspects of allegation
management used in this procedure are identical to those in NRC MD 8.8.
The reader is referred to this document for additional guidance on the
non-inspection-related aspects of allegations.

Allegers are granted confidentiality only in non-routine cases where it
is deemed necessary for purposes of resolving the allegation.
Nevertheless, the identity of the alleger should be protected to the
extent possible, even when confidentiality is not granted. Any
information connected with the allegation should be provided to other
persons, within or outside the NRC, only on a need-to-know basis. Files
should be secured when not in use, and any documents that are released
for general use should be sanitized. Exceptions to the above are those
cases in which it is clearly documented that the alleger has no
objection to making his/her identity known, and releasing the alleger=s
identity would significantly facilitate review and resolution of the
allegation.

To help protect an alleger=s identity , the inspector shall not take any
documents that contain information that may reveal the identity of the
alleger. In addition, care should be taken to assure that documents
about the allegation are protected from inadvertent disclosure.
Information collected during the inspection may be in electronic form
such as a laptop computer or PDAs. Electronic documentation should be
protected from unauthorized review by using password protection for
files and deleting appropriate documents at the closeout of the
allegation. Documents related to an allegation in which confidentiality
was formally granted must be kept in a secure file cabinet or safe and
clearly marked with a Ared cover page@ as discussed in MD 8.8. Access to
such documents is granted only on a need-to-know basis, as determined by
the Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC). Such documents may not be
reproduced without OAC approval, and any copies controlled in the same
manner as the originals. To further ensure identity protection,
allegations are tracked within the NRC by an allegation number and not
by the alleger=s name or any other personal identifier. The inspector
should refer to MD 8.8 for a more detailed discussion of the issue of
confidentiality.

Allegations are reviewed and resolved by different offices within the
NRC depending on the types of concerns they address. Those that are
technical in nature are reviewed by the technical offices, either in
Headquarters or in the Regions. Those that involve wrongdoing by NRC
licensees or vendors are investigated by the Office of Investigations
(OI), either in Headquarters or in the Regions. Those that involve
wrongdoing by NRC personnel are handled by the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG). \[Issues under review by OIG, by definition, are not
considered allegations.\] The inspector should be alert to information
obtained during the inspection that may alter the initial classification
of the allegation, and should take prompt steps to alert appropriate
management for possible coordination of the allegation with, or transfer
to, another office.

Inspections to review allegations include special inspections conducted
outside the routine inspection cycle, as well as routine inspections,
but may be conducted in greater depth and detail than may otherwise be
done during routine inspections. An unusual focus on a particular area
of a licensee=s operation may alert the licensee that the inspection is
being conducted as a result of information not known to the licensee,
and an allegation may be suspected. Should the licensee ask whether the
inspection is being conducted in response to an allegation, the
inspector should inform the licensee that he or she cannot discuss if an
inspection is allegation related. The inspector should also remember
that Aoff-the-record@ communications with licensee personnel are not
acceptable to NRC. The inspector must clearly relay to the staff being
interviewed that any information provided, including that which is
considered by the informant to be Aoff-the-record,@ may be used by NRC
for any official purpose.

[Specific Guidance]{.underline}

03.01 [Pre-inspection activities]{.underline}. The inspector should
review all documents contained in the allegation case file, to ensure
that all the information is clearly understood. Any parts that are not
clear should be discussed with the OAC and the inspector=s supervisor.
The inspector should also review the NRC files pertaining to the
licensee for any information that may be relevant to the allegation, and
also review the license and applicable regulations and guidance for any
conditions that may have a bearing on the case.

The inspector should ensure that the identity protection status provided
to the alleger is clearly understood, as well as the limitations imposed
by such identity protection during discussions with the licensee and
with other NRC personnel not directly involved in the case. The
inspector should discuss any doubtful or unclear points with the OAC.

Based on the inspector=s review of the documentation, the matter should
be discussed with the inspector=s supervisor if wrongdoing appears
likely and the case should be re-paneled by the ARB. It is the ARB=s
responsibility for bringing such issues to the attention of the OI. The
ARB also normally makes the decision regarding the need for direct
discussions with the alleger. The inspector may be assigned to provide
technical support to OI for a wrongdoing investigation.

If the ARB determines that further discussion with the alleger is
necessary, the inspector, in cooperation with the OAC, should decide if
discussions with the alleger should be conducted by telephone or whether
a face-to-face meeting is desirable. If the latter is chosen, the first
choice would be to meet with the alleger during the inspection if such a
meeting would not be expected to disclose the alleger=s identity.
Otherwise, a special meeting should be arranged away from the site, at a
location where the inspector is not likely to be recognized as an NRC
representative (Note: The inspector should be accompanied by another NRC
staff member. An NRC staff member should never be alone when they meet
with an alleger). A private or rental car should be used during such
meetings, rather than an official government car.

03.02 No Guidance

03.03 No Guidance

03.04 No Guidance

03.05 [Inspection Activities]{.underline}. Inspections to review and
resolve allegations are to be conducted in a manner similar to that used
for any routine inspection. The inspection should start as close to the
specific area of the allegation as possible, but not too closely, to
avoid the appearance that the inspector is looking for a specific
problem in a specific area of the licensee=s operation. When reviewing
documents and records, the inspector should be alert to any signs that
the records have been tampered with or do not reflect actual conditions.
This is very difficult to do, and except in blatant cases, can only be
detected through subtle indications. The most obvious item to look for
is any sign of erasures on records. In general, erasures are not made on
official records. Errors are usually corrected by drawing a line through
the erroneous entry, without making the entry illegible, adding the
correct entry, and initialing and dating. Signs of deviation from this
procedure should be viewed with suspicion and at least considered a
serious weakness in the licensee=s program.

The inspector should interview as many personnel who may be connected
with the area addressed in the allegation as possible. Interviews should
be conducted with one licensee representative at a time, if possible.
The alleger may be interviewed provided that he or she would be
interviewed in the course of a routine inspection. Questions should be
asked in a manner that prevents the licensee from knowing the inspection
is allegation related. The inspector should look for consistency among
the various descriptions of the program and licensee activities provided
by the interviewed personnel. Any inconsistencies should be pursued. Any
review should be conducted in such a manner to ensure that actions will
not be taken to obscure the sources of such inconsistencies, or that the
staff will not become wary and stop volunteering information. The
inspector should also be alert to any indications of a chilled work
environment or a reluctance of employees to report or discuss concerns
regarding safety issues. Such a work environment may be indicated by
unexplained changes in the number or nature of valid concerns raised by
employees, indications of hesitancy on the part of employees to discuss
certain issues that appear to be of concern to them, and the timeliness
of the licensee=s corrective actions in addressing employee concerns, or
the lack of such action.

During inspections to evaluate an allegation, copies of licensee
documents that support or disprove the allegation should be obtained by
the inspector if possible. Such documents, along with other
allegation-related materials, should be kept separate from the
inspection records. If the inspection is reactive in response to the
allegation, then all of the findings regarding the allegation that were
obtained should be included in the allegation file. However, if the
inspection is a routine inspection and the allegation will be reviewed
as part of the inspection, then only those facts which are part of the
allegation followup should be included in the allegation file. The
inspection report and records should not document that the inspection
was prompted by an allegation or contain any reference to an allegation.

The inspector must always remember that, even under the best of
circumstances, the fact that a Federal inspector is interviewing a
licensee employee generally puts most employees under stress and on the
defensive. They will often not volunteer useful information under such
circumstances. It is essential to put the interviewee at ease prior to
discussing sensitive issues, and such issues must be discussed
cautiously. The objective of the interview should be to obtain as much
factual information as the employee can provide. However, employees
often volunteer unsolicited and unexpected information that may prove
invaluable in gaining insights into the licensee=s program and in
resolving the allegation, and the inspector should encourage such
free-flowing but relevant discussions. Such information could point to
areas that may require further review .

It may not always be possible to resolve an allegation, and some may be
closed by indication that insufficient information was available to
reach a definitive conclusion. However, even in such cases, the
inspector should inspect all areas of the licensee=s program that are in
any way connected with the allegation. Such an inspection should provide
assurance that these areas of the licensee=s program are well managed
and staffed by qualified personnel, that all procedures are followed,
accurate records maintained and reviewed by the appropriate level of
supervision, and that there are no labor-management disputes that could
affect the quality and safety of the program. The inspector should also
be alert to issues that may have generic implications, either within the
licensee=s operation or for other licensees.

It is normally the licensee=s responsibility to take whatever action is
necessary to avert hazards to public health and safety. However, if the
inspector , solely because of information gained from an investigation
or an alleger, is in a position to prevent a radiation overexposure or
other significant health and safety issue from occurring, the inspector
should intervene. If, in the inspector=s judgment, there is adequate
time to consult with management on the appropriate course of action to
take, then that is the preferred course of action. However, if this is
not possible, then the inspector should intervene in the licensee=s
activities, alert the licensee to the danger, and request a halt to the
activity in question. This should be done without revealing the
alleger=s identity. (Note: NRC management must be consulted before an
alleger=s identity is disclosed by the NRC). Should the alleger=s
identity be inadvertently revealed, the inspector must notify NRC
management as soon as possible.

Information may be obtained during an allegation inspection that
provides indications that wrongdoing may have been involved.
Investigation of wrongdoing is not conducted by technical offices, but
must be referred to OIG or OI, either in the Region or at Headquarters.
Therefore, if wrongdoing is suspected at any time during the inspection,
the inspector should contact regional office management to inform them
of the situation for possible transfer of the case through the ARB. The
inspector may continue to be involved in the inspection, but in the
capacity of providing technical assistance to the investigators.

Depending on the nature of the inspection during which the allegation
was reviewed, and the type of licensee, an inspection report may or may
not be written. However, some method of documenting the activities
performed to determine the validity of the allegation and the findings
needs to be provided, consistent with office procedures and MD 8.8, with
a copy of the documentation placed in the allegation file. No reference
to follow-up of an allegation or employee concern should be entered in
the field notes, inspection reports, or other documents that will be
filed in the NRC inspection file for the licensee. If an inspection
report is written, it should not contain any reference to the allegation
or the alleger. The alleger=s name may appear in the inspection record,
under the section with names of contacted personnel, provided the
alleger would be interviewed as part of a routine inspection. The issues
raised in the allegation, as well as the inspection findings and
resolution of any problems, should be discussed in the report without
reference to an allegation. The findings and manner of resolution of the
allegation should be documented as required and discussed with the OAC.
If the concerns were addressed, the allegation will be closed consistent
with MD 8.8 and Policy and Procedure Letter 1-27, AManagement of
Allegations.@

Documentation specific to the allegation (except inspection records)
should be destroyed by the inspector after the allegation is closed. If
a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is
received during the allegation review, then all documents generated from
that moment on must be retained. All documents released under a FOIA
request must be redacted to protect the identity of the alleger and any
safeguards or proprietary information.

03.06 No Guidance

END