March 7, 2002

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Edward T. Baker III

Agency Allegation Advisor

SUBJECT: STATUS OF ALLEGATION PROGRAM - FISCAL YEAR 2001 ANNUAL

REPORT

In SECY-94-089, "RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE REVIEW TEAM FOR

REASSESSMENT OF THE NRC'S PROGRAM FOR PROTECTING ALLEGERS AGAINST

RETALIATION," the staff committed to have the Agency Allegation Advisor provide an

independent annual report to the Executive Director for Operations that assesses the conduct

of the allegation program in each office and region. A copy of the annual report for Fiscal Year

2001 is attached for your information. The staff intends to provide copies to the Commission

and place the report on the ADAMS public library ten days from the date it is forwarded to you,

unless you direct otherwise.

The report contains an assessment of the allegation program, a review of allegation data for

adverse trends for reactor and materials licensees and contractors, and a review of the

resources expended on follow up of technical allegations. Because the Office of Investigations

prepares an annual report covering the follow up of allegations involving wrongdoing, this

annual report does not specifically address activities concerning those allegations.

Attachment: Annual Report
March 7, 2002

MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Edward T. Baker, III

Agency Allegation Advisor

SUBJECT: STATUS OF ALLEGATION PROGRAM - FISCAL YEAR 2001 ANNUAL

REPORT

In SECY-94-089, "RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE REVIEW TEAM FOR

REASSESSMENT OF THE NRC'S PROGRAM FOR PROTECTING ALLEGERS AGAINST

RETALIATION," the staff committed to have the Agency Allegation Advisor provide an

independent annual report to the Executive Director for Operations that assesses the conduct

of the allegation program in each office and region. A copy of the annual report for Fiscal Year

2001 is attached for your information. The staff intends to provide copies to the Commission

and place the report on the ADAMS public library ten days from the date it is forwarded to you,

unless you direct otherwise.

The report contains an assessment of the allegation program, a review of allegation data for

adverse trends for reactor and materials licensees and contractors, and a review of the

resources expended on follow up of technical allegations. Because the Office of Investigations

prepares an annual report covering the follow up of allegations involving wrongdoing, this

annual report does not specifically address activities concerning those allegations.

Attachment: Annual Report

DISTRIBUTION:

CPaperiello, DEDMRS WKane, DEDR PNorry, DEDM SCollins, NRR

MVirgilio, NMSS FCongel, OE GCaputo, OI HMiller, RI

LReyes, RII JDyer, RIII EMerschoff, RIV

NRR Mailroom (WITS 199600149)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\Ed - Carl Folder\Annual Rpt EDO Memo 2001.wpd

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures 

"N" = No copy 

OFFICE AAA * NRR *

NAME EBaker SCollins/JJ for

DATE 03/ 7 /02 3/ 7 /02

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
STATUS OF ALLEGATION PROGRAM

FISCAL YEAR 2001

ANNUAL REPORT
CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGATION PROGRAM PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Protecting the Identity of Allegers .........................................3

Timeliness Goals ......................................................3

Quality Goal ..........................................................4

Alleger Feedback on Performance ........................................4

Resources Expended on Allegations .......................................5

TRENDS IN ALLEGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

General Trends .......................................................7

Allegation Trends for Selected Reactor Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Dresden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

St. Lucie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Byron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Susquehanna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Columbia Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Indian Point 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

D.C. Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Turkey Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Cooper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Catawba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Allegation Trends at Materials Licensees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Allegation Trends at Vendors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

APPENDIX 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

APPENDIX 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In SECY-94-089, "Response to the Report of the Review Team for Reassessment of the NRC's

Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation," the staff committed to have the Agency

Allegation Advisor (AAA) prepare an annual report for the Executive Director for Operations

(EDO) that assesses the conduct of the allegation program in each NRC office and region that

routinely handles allegations. This annual report fulfills that commitment. In this report, the

staff discusses allegation trends for reactor and materials licensees and vendors, and reviews

the resources expended on following up on technical allegations. Because the Office of

Investigations prepares an annual report covering the follow-up of allegations involving

wrongdoing, this report does not specifically address activities concerning allegations of

wrongdoing.

The findings from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 audits and NRC’s performance measures for the

allegation program indicate continuing improvements in reviewing, documenting, tracking, and

completing evaluations of allegations. The timeliness and quality of communications with

allegers also continue to improve. Based on the FY 2001 audit of the allegation program, the

allegation program achieved an effectiveness rating of 98.6 percent, compared to a rating of

98.7 percent in FY 2000. Additionally, no inappropriate disclosures of the identity of allegers

occurred in FY 2001, continuing the performance of the last two years.

One change that occurs in this year’s report is the

trending of allegation data on a calendar year basis

when discussing general trends and trends at

licensee facilities. This change was made so that the

data presented in this report is consistent with the

data used in the Reactor Oversight Process and the

Agency Action Review Meetings. As the figure to the

right indicates, there has been a fairly steady decline

in the number of allegations received by the NRC

from 1997 through 2001 when looking at calendar

year data.

The staff believes that a major contributor to this trend is due to the emphasis the Commission

and the staff have placed, and continue to place, on licensees establishing and maintaining

work environments that encourage employees to raise issues and it is due to the industry’s

effort to create and maintain such an environment. Through this period, the staff has increased

the information available to licensees by placing allegation statistics on the NRC’s web page,

referring more allegations to licensees for evaluation and reply, and discussing trends that

emerge with licensees. For their part, licensees have used the statistics on allegations and

trend information provided by the staff as an opportunity to understand why licensee employees

are raising issues to the NRC rather than using internal reporting processes. In general,

licensees have been responsive in addressing employee concerns with using internal

processes and, as a consequence, more employees are using internal mechanisms and fewer

issues are coming to the NRC.

However, for some licensees the NRC continues to receive allegations in numbers that warrant

additional analysis. In preparing this report, a 5-year history of allegations was reviewed for

reactor and material licensees and vendors to identify adverse trends. Given the Commission’s 
2

continuing emphasis on establishing and maintaining a safety-conscious work environment, the

analysis focused on allegations that originated from onsite sources, either from licensee or

contractor employees, former employees, or anonymous sources. The staff identified ten

reactor sites for a more in-depth review: Dresden, St. Lucie, Byron, Susquehanna, Columbia

Generating Station, Indian Point 2, D.C. Cook, Turkey Point, Cooper, and Catawba. Each of

these sites is discussed in the report. 

Only two materials licensees were the subject of allegations at a level that warranted additional

analysis, the Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants. On the basis of allegation

statistics for 2001, the review did not identify any other materials licensees warranting additional

review. Additionally, no vendors or contractors were the subject of allegations in sufficient

number to warrant additional review.

Over the last four years, the trend in resources

expended on the follow-up of technical allegations has

generally followed the trend in allegations received. 

The hours expended on allegation follow-up decreased

from approximately 67,700 in FY 1997 to

approximately 42,000 in FY 2001. However, the staff

has also contributed to the decline by scheduling

allegation followup activities during planned

inspections, to the extent possible, and referring more

allegations to licensees for evaluation and response. 

The extent to which this can be done is limited by the

NRC’s goals for timely closure of allegations and the

willingness of licensees to conduct objective and

complete reviews and provide candid results back to

the NRC.

In summary, the staff continues to emphasize addressing each allegation fully in a timely

manner and the implementation of the allegation program continues to improve. For this

improved performance to continue, emphasis must be placed on properly implementing the

allegation program in handling each allegation, particularly with regard to protecting the identity

of allegers and adequately addressing the issues.
3

OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGATION PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

The Commission established the allegation program to provide a way for individuals working in

NRC-regulated activities and members of the public to provide safety and regulatory concerns

directly to the NRC. The program includes a database that allows the staff to track concerns

submitted to the NRC to ensure that the concerns are evaluated and resolved in a timely

manner, consistent with the associated safety or risk significance, and that the results of NRC’s

evaluation are communicated to the individual who submitted the concerns, when appropriate.

The performance of the allegation program is measured against goals for protecting the identity

of allegers and conducting an appropriate review of all concerns in a timely manner. The goal

for protecting the identity of allegers is no inappropriate release of an alleger’s identity. 

Timeliness goals have been established for the initial evaluation of the concerns by the

allegation review board (ARB), sending the initial correspondence to the alleger, and

completing the evaluation of the concerns and providing the results to the alleger. The quality

of the staff’s review and its correspondence with the alleger is assessed during the annual

audits. 

Protecting the Identity of Allegers

One element of the allegation program that is essential to its credibility is protecting the identity

of allegers to the extent possible. The metric used to measure performance is no substantiated

complaints of inappropriate release of an alleger’s identity as determined by either the Office of

Inspector General (OIG) or the staff. For FY 2001, neither the OIG nor the staff substantiated

an inappropriate release of the identity of any allegers. This is the third consecutive year that

the staff has met this goal. Given the importance of protecting the identity of allegers, personal

responsibility and accountability continues to be emphasized in training sessions with the staff. 

Timeliness Goals

The goal for the initial evaluation of the allegation and staff assignment for followup is to have

this occur at the ARB within 30 days for all allegations. The staff met this goal in FY 1999 and

FY 2000. In FY 2001, one of the 564 allegations discussed at ARBs exceeded the goal by four

days because of an error in the software used to alert the staff to allegations that need to be

discussed. The allegation did not involve any issues that required quick evaluation or response

and the delay in discussing it at an ARB did not adversely affect timely resolution of the

allegation. The results of the staff’s evaluation were mailed to the alleger within 107 days of

receiving the allegation. The intent of the goal was met even though the actual goal was not. 

Additionally, the software error has been fixed to prevent recurrence.

Initial correspondence with the alleger acknowledges receipt of the allegation and documents

the specific concerns as understood by the NRC staff. The goals for issuing letters

acknowledging receipt of allegations are 90 percent within 30 days and 100 percent within 45

days. The staff met these goals in FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001. The longer goal was

instituted to improve the efficiency of the process for those cases in which the NRC staff

believes it needs more information than initially provided by the alleger before proceeding. The

longer goal provides an opportunity to contact the alleger by telephone to solicit additional

information prior to sending a letter acknowledging receipt, thus avoiding preparing two letters

for the sole purpose of meeting the shorter performance goal.
1

 In response to the audit finding, the staff provided a supplemental response to the alleger

addressing the results of the staff’s review.

4

The agency’s goal for closing technical, non-wrongdoing, allegations is 180 days on average. 

The staff met this goal in FY 1999 (117 days), FY 2000 (108 days), and FY 2001 (112 days). 

Figures 1 and 2 above show the distribution of the time to close allegations and demonstrate

that the staff has continued to improve the time it takes to close an allegation.

Quality Goal

The staff instituted a quality or effectiveness goal for the allegation program in FY 1999. The

goal is that staff followup of allegations appropriately captures and responds to each issue

raised in 90 percent of the allegations reviewed during the annual audit. During the FY 2001

audits, the staff found that out of the 76 allegations reviewed, several issues in one allegation

were not adequately addressed in the closure letter to the alleger.1

 This resulted in a quality or

effectiveness rating of 98.6 percent for FY 2001. This goal was also met in FY 1999 and FY

2000.

Alleger Feedback on Performance

On October 1, 2000, the staff initiated a trial program that solicited feedback from allegers on

the performance of the allegation program. For one year the staff included a feedback form in

all letters informing allegers of the results of the staff’s review. The original schedule for

reporting the results to the Commission was the end of March 2002. However, delays in mail

delivery as a consequence of the anthrax contamination and subsequent compensatory

measures have delayed receipt of returned forms as much as three months. Consequently, the

due date for the Commission paper was extended until June 28, 2002. Surveys received as of

the end of January 2002 indicate that the staff treats allegers in a professional manner and

allegations are acknowledged and responded to in a timely manner. The areas for

improvement are ensuring our written responses clearly address the concerns submitted and

clearly explaining our review and the bases for our conclusions. The Commission paper will

provide a more detailed analysis of the responses.

Resources Expended on Allegations
2 Hours for materials allegations includes time spent by the regions and NMSS on allegations

concerning agreement state licensees. Time spent on issues concerning agreement state licensees is

not tracked separately.

5

Lesson 5 from the River Bend Review Team noted that the resources expended on the

handling of allegations by the headquarters and regional staff need to be fully documented in

the agency’s automated data processing systems and that the level of resources being spent

on handling allegations needs to be periodically evaluated. The audits conducted in FY 2001

found that while there have been improvements in correctly reporting time spent on allegations,

the staff is still not consistently and accurately reporting all time spent on followup of

allegations. This was a finding in the FY 2000 and FY 1999 audits as well.

As part of this report, the resources expended on handling allegations were reviewed. Figure 3

below shows the hours expended by the technical staff in handling allegations concerning

reactor and materials licensees2

 from FY 1997 through FY 2001. The graph shows a gradual 

decrease in the hours expended on allegations from FY 1997 through FY 2001. As noted

below, the changes are most heavily influenced by the decline in the number of reactor-related

allegations received and the associated decline in the hours expended.

Figure 4 displays the hours expended per allegation closed. Because the number of issues

contained in an allegation varies from allegation to allegation, this can have a large impact on

the number of hours expended. To account for

this, Figure 5 displays the hours expended on a

concern basis. While the trend curve is similar,

the number of hours expended per concern is a

more accurate measure and is a more

appropriate indicator of efficiency. Because of

the significant increase in the time expended

per reactor related allegation and concern in FY

1999 through FY 2000, the labor rates for

reactor-related concerns were calculated for

NRR and the four regions. Figure 6 displays

the total hours expended by NRR and each

region and Figure 7 displays the labor rates for

each for FY 1998 through FY 2001.
6

Historically, NRR’s labor rate has been higher than the regions because the issues addressed

in NRR are the generic, more complex, technical issues involving the design bases and/or

licensing bases for nuclear power plants that sometimes involve a class of plants, e.g., all

Westinghouse pressurized water reactors. Additionally, it is more difficult to refer these types

of issues to licensees or their contractors for review. Consequently, the regions refer a higher

percentage of allegations to licensees, which helps reduce their labor rate. However, this alone

does not totally explain the large increase in the labor rate experienced in FY 2000. To address

the increase, NRR management made some organizational changes to more closely manage

the allegation effort and the time charged to allegations. Based on the significant reduction in

the labor rate within NRR, it appears the efforts were successful.

The staff continues to emphasize the importance of the accurate recording of the number of

hours expended on allegation followup. In response to last year’s audits, the regions conducted

additional training on properly reporting time spent on allegations and conducted periodic

reviews of the time reported. As the staff becomes increasingly more diligent in properly

recording the hours spent on allegation follow-up, the labor rate will increase until the accuracy

is close to 100 percent.

TRENDS IN ALLEGATIONS

Review Team Recommendation II.B-14 stated that the NRC should monitor both technical and

discrimination allegations to discern trends or sudden increases that might justify the NRC

questioning the licensee as to the root causes of such changes or trends. In preparing this

report, a 5-year history of allegations was reviewed for reactor and material licensees and

vendors.

With the continuing emphasis on establishing and maintaining a safety-conscious work

environment, the staff focused on those allegations that have the potential to provide insights

into the environment. To achieve this goal, the staff selected only those allegations submitted

by licensee or contractor employees or by former employees or by anonymous sources. The

staff is currently performing the analysis twice a year – in the first quarter of the calendar year

to support the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) end-of-cycle assessments and this annual

report and in the third quarter to support the ROP mid-cycle assessments. In addition, an

analysis for a particular site or licensee may be performed whenever allegations or inspection

findings indicate it is warranted. The discussions in the sections on trends concerning reactor

and materials licensees and vendors or contractors are based on allegations from onsite
7

sources and are calendar year trends, rather than fiscal year trends. Calendar year trends are

used to be consistent with the ROP cycle.

The staff also reviews trends in allegations to identify national trends for reactor and materials

allegations, shifts in users of the allegation program, and to assess the impact on the workload

in the regions and NRR and NMSS. These trends are discussed in the next section on general

trends.

General Trends

National trends are of interest because they are used in developing budget assumptions, labor

rates, and preparing operating plans. As the following graphs indicate, there can be significant

changes in the number of allegations received due to internal and external influences. Figures

8 and 9 below show the 5-year national trends. From Figure 8 it is clear that there has been a

downward trend in the number of allegations received by the NRC. This trend is a result of

licensees being more responsible to employees concerns and the NRC staff providing more

information to licensees on trends in allegations. This information has allowed licensees to

identify areas in which they may need to focus more attention on the willingness of employees

to use internal reporting processes. From Figure 9, one can see that the number of allegations

involving discrimination or other types of wrongdoing has remained fairly constant as a

percentage of total number of allegations.

As stated above, the staff also looks for trends in the workload by organization, disciplines or

departments from which allegations originate, and the sources of allegations. The allegation

tracking software that was deployed in October 1996 provides for tracking the source category

for each allegation and the discipline for each concern. With five years of data available, the

staff is analyzing and reporting statistics at the allegation level and at the concern level. The

concern level analyses produce a better picture of the allegation workload and allow the staff to

track whether individual concerns are substantiated. 
8

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Agreement State Materials

Reactor

REGION II - ISSUES RECEIVED

FIGURE 11

Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13 show the shift of allegation workload in the regions at the concern or

issue level. With the NRC’s budget prepared two years in advance, budgeted resources may

not reflect the actual workload in the organization when shifts in workload occur as happens

with allegations.

While the number of issues or concerns received declined agency wide from 2000 to 2001, the

graphs above clearly show that impact is not evenly distributed across the regions. While

Regions I, II, and IV experienced small increases, the number of issues received by Region III

declined fairly significantly, particularly in the materials area. The drop in materials related

issues in Region III can be largely attributed to a drop in the number of issues received

concerning the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. The number of issues

received concerning the Paducah plant declined 37 percent and the number concerning the

Portsmouth plant declined 35 percent.

In addition to having different workloads, the mix of staff skills necessary to address the issues

received also varies by region and office. The differences are driven by events at licensee

facilities and the reaction of the industry, industry workers, and private citizens to national

events. As an example, this year issues concerning security became the predominant issue

nationwide following the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. However as Figure

18 indicates, security was not the predominant issue in Region III. 
9

Figures 14 through 19 depict the ten areas that represent approximately 80 percent of the

issues received nationwide and the distribution of those issues in NRR and the four regions.

HP - Health Physics or Radiation Protection, QA/QC - Quality Assurance/Quality Control

FFD - Fitness For Duty, EP - Emergency Planning
10

Because the activities performed by materials licensees are not as homogeneous as those

performed by reactor licensees, a comparison at the “Discipline” level doesn’t produce

meaningful results. To provide further insights into the areas in which the NRC is spending

resources on materials-related allegations, the following graphs depict the ten license

categories that represent approximately 80 percent of the issues received nationwide and the

distribution of those issues in NMSS and the four regions.

Decom Materials - Decommissioning Materials Site

Decom Reactor - Decommissioning Reactor Site

R&D - Research & Development Company
11

Figures 26 and 27 provide a breakdown of allegations received by categories of sources for the

last three years for reactor and materials allegations. For reactor-related allegations, there has

been a steady decline in allegations received from contractor employees. Anecdotal

information provides several reasons for this decline: 1) licensees are using fewer contractor

employees, 2) licensees are more clearly stating their expectations that contractors be

responsive to issues raised by their employees, and 3) licensees are providing more training to

contractors and their employees on how to appropriately raise and respond to issues.

In comparing the sources for materials vs. reactor-related allegations, Private Citizen and 

Anonymous are more prevalent sources for materials-related allegations and Contractor

Employees are less prevalent. This is logical because materials licensees’ activities are more

visible to the public, materials licensees are usually smaller companies and allegers may be

more concerned with being identified, and these smaller licensees use fewer contractors. 
3 A chilled work environment is one in which employees are reluctant or unwilling to raise safety

or regulatory issues because of a fear of retaliation or because employee perceive management is

discouraging use of reporting systems, e.g., corrective action program, employee concerns program.

12

Two of the categories deserve some explanation. The source category “NRC” is used for when

the NRC staff suspects a violation of requirements is deliberate or due to careless disregard

and the Office of Investigations opens an investigation. The category “Licensee” is used for the

same kinds of issues that are reported by a licensee to the NRC. An allegation number is used

to track the followup on the technical and wrongdoing aspects of the issue. 

Allegation Trends for Selected Reactor Sites

As noted previously, the trending of allegations received concerning individual reactor sites is

one method the NRC staff uses to monitor the work environment at reactor sites. Statistics on

allegations received concerning all operating reactor sites are given in Appendix 1. The

statistics cover the allegations received during the period January 1997 through December

2001.

In determining which reactor sites should receive a more in-depth review, the staff applied the

following criteria:

1) The number of allegations received exceeds 2 times the median value for the industry, but

does not exceed three times the median, and there is at least a 50 percent increase in the

number of allegations received over the previous year.

2) The number of allegations received exceeds 3 times the median value.

For CY 2001, the median number of allegations per reactor site was three. The ten reactor

sites that met one of these criteria are Dresden (33), St. Lucie (27), Byron (20), 

Susquehanna (15), Columbia Station (13), Indian Point 2 (12), D.C. Cook (12), Turkey Point

(11), Cooper (8), and Catawba (7). The first eight sites exceeded 3 times the industry median

of three allegations. Cooper and Catawba exceeded 2 times the median and experienced

more than a 50 percent increase in the number of allegations concerning the site. A more

detailed discussion of each of these sites follows.

Dresden

As can be seen in Figure 28, an increase in

allegations that started in 2000 accelerated in

2001. A review of the issues received indicates a

majority of the issues concern activities in the

health physics/radiation protection area. In

addition to an increase in the total number of 

allegations received, the number of allegations of

discrimination and chilled work environment3

 also

rose.

In a letter dated October 9, 2001, the NRC staff

informed the licensee of the trend of allegations concerning radiation protection activities. The
13

NRC staff requested that the licensee evaluate the possibility of a chilled work environment

within the Radiation Protection department at Dresden. On February 11, 2002, the licensee

responded to the staff’s request.

The licensee concluded that non-bargaining unit employees within the Radiation Protection

department were free to raise and willing to raise safety issues. With regard to bargaining unit

employees, the licensee concluded that a number of factors created perceptions that

discouraged some of these employees from raising safety issues. The licensee has taken a

number of actions to address this perception, including bringing in a new Radiation Protection

Manager in December 2001. The licensee also reports an increased use of the corrective

action program by non-bargaining unit employees within the department.

While there has not been a substantiated allegation of discrimination in the last five years

concerning activities at the operating units at the Dresden site, the NRC received four

allegations of discrimination in 2000 and twelve in 2001. As of January 31, 2001, two of the

allegations received in 2000 and four of the allegations received in 2001 had been closed. 

None of the closed allegations were substantiated. While the NRC has not completed its

review for eight of the allegations received in 2001, a Department of Labor Area Director issued

findings that discrimination for engaging in protected activities was not a factor for six of those

allegations.

The staff will continue to monitor the work environment at Dresden by monitoring the trend of

allegations concerning the health physics/radiation protect area, trends in the licensee’s

corrective action program, the outcome of the allegations of discrimination, and the general

allegation trend.

St. Lucie

While there has been a general decline in

allegations since the 64 received in 1997, there

was a significant rise from 2000 (9) to 2001 (27). 

Additionally, the NRC staff noted that a number of

allegers expressed a reluctance to use the

corrective action program because they perceived

that supervisors were discouraging its use because

it added to their workload. 

In a referral of an allegation to the licensee, the

NRC staff informed the licensee of its observation and requested that the licensee address the

general concern as well as the specific issues being referred. The licensee reviewed the use of

the program by department. In departments where it appeared that appropriate issues were

not being entered in the corrective action program, the licensee took a number of actions to

reinforce its expectations. Coaching sessions were held with supervisors, training on the use of

the program was provided, and reviews were conducted to ensure adequate resources were

available. Based on the fact that no additional allegations concerning use of the corrective

action system were received in the last three months of the year, it appears the licensee’s

actions were successful.
14

With regard to allegations of discrimination, there has not been a substantiated case of

discrimination since 1996. Two allegations of discrimination were received in 2000 and in 2001. 

As of January 31, 2002, one allegation of discrimination was still under review.

The staff will continue to monitor the outcome on the open discrimination allegation and the

general allegation trend.

Byron

As a result of allegations received in 1998, the staff

asked the licensee to address specific examples of

behavior by supervisors and mangers at Byron that

employees perceived as discouraging them from

raising safety issues. The licensee conducted an

assessment of the work environment at Byron and

responded to the staff in November 1998. In March

1999, the staff asked for additional information

concerning the licensee’s assessment of the work

environment at Byron and requested that the

licensee attend a public meeting to discuss the

work environment issues. The licensee responded to the staff in a letter dated May 26, 1999,

and on May 27, 1999, met with the staff to discuss the control of overtime and work

environment issues.

While the licensee’s assessment concluded that some of the specific examples were

substantiated, the licensee stated that (1) the work environment at Byron is conducive to raising

safety concerns, (2) workers are not hesitant to raise safety issues, (3) there is a strong nuclear

safety ethic demonstrated at Byron, and (4) alternate means to raise safety issues are being

used. The licensee also described actions taken to improve the work environment, including

training for all managers and first line supervisors on establishing and maintaining a safety

conscious work environment and individual coaching sessions for some supervisors.

The issue of the number of allegations concerning Byron was raised again with the licensee

during a public meeting that was held in Region III on December 10, 1999, to discuss overall

performance at all Commonwealth Edison sites, now Exelon’s Mid-West Regional Operating

Group. The issue was also a topic of discussion at a meeting with licensee management on

June 27, 2000. During that meeting, the licensee stated that based on their internal

assessments, employees at Byron are comfortable raising safety concerns.

Notwithstanding the assessment the licensee provided during the June 27, 2000, meeting,

during 2001 the NRC received an increasing number of allegations. The issues received

predominately concern activities within the Operations department. The licensee is aware of

this trend because 50 percent of the issues concerning Operations activities were referred to

the licensee for review and response, including issues concerning a chilled work environment

within the department. The licensee provided a supplemental response on January 25, 2002. 

As of the end of January, the NRC staff was reviewing the response to determine if any

additional action is needed.

With regard to allegations of discrimination, there has not been a substantiated allegation in the

last four years. As of January 31, 2002, there were two open allegations of discrimination. In
15

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

0

5

10

15

20

25

Received Closed

Substantiated

FIGURE 31 - ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED BY CY

addition to reviewing the licensee’s recent response, the staff will continue to monitor the

outcome on the open discrimination allegations and the general allegation trend.

Susquehanna

In 2000, the number of allegations received from onsite sources rose to 13. A review of the

issues indicated that a majority of the issues

concerned activities in the radiation protection

department. Additionally, some employees in the 

department perceived they were being

discouraged from submitting condition reports. 

Following an evaluation of the issue, the licensee

took a number of actions, including a change in

management, meetings with the employees in the

department to clearly state the expectation the

corrective action program would be used,

providing training in the use of the corrective

action program, and providing training for

supervisors and employees on how to raise and respond to issues.

While the number of allegations received by the NRC concerning Susquehanna increased in

2001, a review of the issues found no pattern or trend in the issues received or the department

involved. The trend of issues concerning activities in the radiological protection department did

not continue into 2001. From that perspective the licensee’s actions to address the issues in

that department appear to have been successful.

With regard to allegations of discrimination, there has not been a substantiated allegation of

discrimination in the last five years. As of January 31, 2002, there were three open allegations

of discrimination. While the NRC continues to review all three allegations, a Department of

Labor Area Director issued a finding that discrimination for engaging in protected activities was

not a factor for one of the allegations. 

Based on the conclusion that no trends are evident in the allegations received in 2001, the NRC

staff plans no action other than continuing to monitor the open allegations of discrimination and

the general allegation trend.

Columbia Station

As can be seen in Figure 32, the Columbia

Station experienced a rapid increase in the

number of allegations received by the NRC after

four years in which the number of allegations

steadily declined. A review of the individual 

issues found no pattern or trend in the issues

received or the department involved. With regard

to allegations of discrimination, there has not

been a substantiated allegation of discrimination

in the last five years. As of January 31, 2002,

there were three open allegations of

discrimination. While NRC continues to review all
16

three allegations, a Department of Labor Area Director issued a finding that discrimination for

engaging in protected activities was not a factor for one of the allegations. 

Based on the conclusion that no trends are evident in the allegations received in 2001, the NRC

staff will continue to monitor the open allegations of discrimination and the general allegation

trend.

Indian Point 2

While the number of allegations the NRC received met the threshold for additional evaluation,

the review of the issues found no pattern or trend

in the issues received or the department involved. 

Three factors that could have contributed to the

increased number of allegations are the increased

level of regulatory scrutiny following the steam

generator tube rupture, the increased number of

employees on site for the steam generator

replacement, and the purchase of the plant by

Entergy. Additionally, the new owner has been

introducing new practices to improve plant

operations. It is not uncommon for the number of

allegations to increase given any one of these

reasons. 

With regard to allegations of discrimination, there were three open allegations of discrimination

as of January 31, 2002. While NRC continues to review all three allegations, a Department of

Labor Area Director issued a finding that discrimination for engaging in protected activities was

a factor for one of the allegations. Following that finding, the NRC requested that the licensee

address any potential for a chilling effect resulting from the action that DOL found to be

discriminatory. The staff continues to evaluate the licensee’s response.

Based on the conclusion that no trends are evident in the allegations received in 2001, the NRC

staff plans no action other than continuing to monitor the open allegations of discrimination and

the general allegation trend.

D.C. Cook

Figure 34 displays a trend that is consistent with

trends exhibited by other plants that have been

through extended shutdowns. The number of

allegations submitted to the NRC tends to rise as the

work performed and the workforce at the plant

increases. As the plant gets closer to startup and

workforce reductions are announced, allegations

generally rise further. The number of allegations

received by the NRC generally peaks several months

after startup and then start to decline to levels

consistent with most operating plants. During 2001,

a significant portion of the issues involved activities in

the engineering area, including issues of discrimination and chilled work environment.
17

The NRC received a high number of allegations of discrimination in 1999 (6), 2000 (6), and

2001 (5) compared to other reactor sites. In May 2000, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation

for a discriminatory act by a contractor that occurred in October 1998. The staff did not issue a

civil penalty because of the corrective actions taken by the licensee. The corrective actions

included, but were not limited to: (1) promptly settling the complaint before an OSHA

investigation; (2) holding meetings with all supervisors; (3) enhancing the employee concerns

program (ECP) and publicizing it; (4) strengthening the utility's policy on discrimination; (5)

providing training to all managers and supervisors; and (6) taking steps to ensure that

contractors understand and abide by the licensee’s policy on discrimination.

On January 17, 2002, the NRC issued another Notice of Violation for a discriminatory act by

another contractor. Again, staff did not issue a civil penalty because of the immediate

corrective actions taken by the licensee upon learning of the circumstances surrounding the

termination of employment by the contractor. The corrective action included offers for reemployment. Currently, the NRC has eight allegations of discrimination under evaluation. For

four of the eight allegations, a Department of Labor Area Director issued findings that

discrimination for engaging in protected activities was not a factor in the employment actions

taken. In one allegation, a Department of Labor Area Director issued a finding that

discrimination for engaging in protected activities was a factor in the employment actions taken. 

In this same allegation, the NRC’s Office of Investigation concluded that the evidence did not

support a finding of discrimination. The licensee has appealed the Area Director’s finding and

the NRC is waiting for the results of the hearing before making a final decision.

The staff will continue to monitor the outcome of the evaluation of the open allegations and the

general allegation trend. Based on the fact that there has not been a substantiated allegation

of discrimination concerning a licensee employee, the extensive actions taken by the licensee

for discriminatory acts by contractors, and the decline in allegations in 2001, the staff plans no

further actions at this time.

Turkey Point

Since 1998, the number of allegations received by the NRC concerning Turkey Point has been

fairly steady. A review of the individual issues received during 2001 found no pattern or trend in

the issues or the department involved. With regard

to allegations of discrimination, there has not been a

substantiated allegation of discrimination in the last

five years. As of January 31, 2002, there were two

open allegations of discrimination. In one case,

both the NRC’s Office of Investigation and a

Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge

concluded discrimination for engaging in protected

activities was not a factor in the employment action. 

However, the judge’s decision was appealed and

NRC continues to monitor the outcome of the

appeal. The NRC’s evaluation of the second

allegation continues.

Based on the conclusion that no trends are evident in the allegations received in 2001, the NRC

staff plans no action other than continuing to monitor the open allegations of discrimination and

the general allegation trend.
18

Cooper

In the last five years the NRC has received few allegations concerning the Cooper Station. In

2001, the number of allegations increased after four years of declining numbers. A review of

the individual issues found no pattern or trend in the issues received or the department

involved. With regard to allegations of discrimination,

there has not been a substantiated allegation of

discrimination in the last five years. As of January 31,

2002, there were three open allegations of

discrimination. While NRC continues to review all

three allegations, a Department of Labor Area

Director issued a finding that discrimination for

engaging in protected activities was not a factor for

one of the allegations.

Based on the conclusion that no trends are evident in

the allegations received in 2001, the NRC staff plans

no action other than continuing to monitor the open allegations of discrimination and the

general allegation trend.

Catawba

In the last five years the NRC has received few allegations concerning Catawba. In 2001, the

number of allegations increased to the same level as received in 1997. A review of the

individual issues found no pattern or trend in the issues received or the department involved. 

With regard to allegations of discrimination, only two

allegations were received during the five years

reviewed and those were received in 2001. While

NRC continues to review those two allegations, a

Department of Labor Area Director issued findings

that discrimination for engaging in protected activities

was not a factor for the allegations.

Based on the conclusion that no trends are evident in

the allegations received in 2001, the NRC staff plans

no action other than continuing to monitor the open

allegations of discrimination and the general

allegation trend.

Allegation Trends at Materials Licensees

Because of the small number of allegations received concerning individual materials licensees

and because of the potential for a licensee or contractor to identify an alleger, tables of

statistics on allegations concerning these two categories have not been included in this report. 

With the exception of the Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants, none of the

contractors or licensees received a sufficient number of allegations in discern an adverse trend

or pattern.

Paducah
19

On December 20, 1999, the staff issued a Severity Level II Notice of Violation and an $88,000

civil penalty to the licensee for a substantiated allegation of discrimination at the Paducah

facility. Although, the licensee denied that it had discriminated against the alleger, the licensee

initiated extensive actions to address the issue. The U. S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC)

hired a consulting firm to perform a site-wide survey of the work environment at both facilities. 

At a subsequent public meeting, USEC presented a summary of the results of the survey and

committed to address issues identified as needing improvement. During the meeting, USEC

requested additional time to develop specific corrective actions and the staff granted USEC’s

request. 

The actions USEC took included (1) improvements to the Employee Concerns Program, (2)

training for supervisors and managers in how to how to deal with employees who raise issues in

a constructive manner, (3) training for employees in how to raise issues and their rights and

responsibilities, and (4) training for senior management in detecting and preventing retaliation. 

To assess the effectiveness of these actions, in May 2000, USEC conducted another

assessment of the work environment using the same independent consultant. Employee

responses to the May 2000 assessment provided very good ratings for nuclear safety culture

and safety conscious work environment. Both ratings had improved 5 percent from the

previous rating.

As displayed in Figured 38, there has been a decline in the number of allegations coming to the

NRC. The number of allegations received declined 22 percent and the number of issues

received declined 37 percent. The number of allegations of discrimination have also declined,

dropping from 15 in 2000 to 7 in 2001.

While it appears the actions taken by the licensee

are having a positive effect, the NRC staff

continues to receive allegations that some

employees at Paducah are reluctant to use

internal processes for reporting safety concerns. 

Additionally, the number of allegations of

discrimination received remains relatively high. 

Because the licensee has already taken extensive

action to address these concerns, the staff is

planning on meeting with the licensee to discuss

what additional actions the licensee is considering. 

Following that meeting, the staff will determine

whether any additional regulatory action is needed.
20

Portsmouth

Figure 39 indicates that actions taken by the

licensee have been more successful at the

Portsmouth facility. Additionally, as of January

31, 2001, there has not been a substantiated

allegation of discrimination at the Portsmouth site

and there is only one open allegation of

discrimination at the site. Based on the current

downward trend of allegations at the Portsmouth

facility, the NRC staff plans no action other than

continuing to monitor the open allegation of

discrimination and the general allegation trend.

Allegation Trends at Vendors

Because none of the vendors or contractors received a sufficient number of allegations to

discern a trend or pattern, or provide insights into the work environment, more in-depth reviews

were not performed. Statistics by contractor or vendor are not given in this report because

publishing the number of allegations received has the potential of identifying the alleger.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the implementation of the allegation program has improved in the last year. The

findings from the audits and NRC’s performance measures for the allegation program indicate

improvements have occurred in receiving, documenting, tracking, and completing evaluations of

allegations. The timeliness and quality of communications with allegers have also improved. 

Although there has been a general improvement in the handling of allegations, the audits

continue to identify isolated examples of incomplete communications with allegers. However,

the number of occurrences has been reduced.

As noted in the previous discussions of specific licensees, the analysis of allegations has

provided insights into the work environment at several facilities. The staff continues to take a

deliberately measured approach in addressing work environment issues with licensees. To

date, licensees have been responsive to this approach and have taken action to address the

staff’s concerns. As this report indicates, the staff continues to monitor work environment

issues at several facilities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The staff has no recommendations for program changes at this time.
21

APPENDIX 1

ALLEGATIONS STATISTICS – OPERATING REACTORS
22

ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED FROM ONSITE SOURCES

Site 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

ARKANSAS 1 & 2 32253

BEAVER VALLEY 1 & 2 72436

BRAIDWOOD 1 & 2 10 4 13 14 5

BROWNS FERRY 2 & 3 11 6 4 4 2

BRUNSWICK 1 & 2 239111

BYRON 1 & 2 8 16 22 14 20

CALLAWAY 33596

CALVERT CLIFFS 1 & 2 61632

CATAWBA 1 & 2 7 1 3 7

CLINTON 19 12 9 10 1

COLUMBIA PLANT 14 6 4 13

COMANCHE PEAK 1 & 2 74555

COOK 1 & 2 5 11 19 22 12

COOPER 64218

CRYSTAL RIVER 17 3 3 4 2

DAVIS-BESSE 4 1 3 2

DIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 12 17466

DRESDEN 2 & 3 12 7 3 12 33

DUANE ARNOLD 1 4 2 3

FARLEY 1 & 2 5 3 8 3

FERMI 6 2 1 4 3

FITZPATRICK 5 3 1 6 1

FORT CALHOUN 4 5 1 1 2

GINNA 2 1

GRAND GULF 2 4 2 3 5

HARRIS 1 & 2 3 6 4 1 1

HATCH 1 & 2 16 8 6 12 2

INDIAN POINT 2 8 10 3 11 12

INDIAN POINT 3 15 5 10 9 6

KEWAUNEE 1 4

LASALLE 1 & 2 9 7 11 4 2

LIMERICK 1 & 2 8 2 1 2 2

MCGUIRE 1 & 2 1 1 1
23

MILLSTONE 2 & 3 42 23 22 8 2

MONTICELLO 1 3 1

NINE MILE POINT 1 & 2 8 16 7 11 4

NORTH ANNA 1 & 2 4 1

OCONEE 1, 2, & 3 2 5 4 2 5

OYSTER CREEK 8 7 6 3 5

PALISADES 2 1 4

PALO VERDE 1, 2, & 3 174433

PEACH BOTTOM 2 & 3 5 1 1 4 2

PERRY 8 3 4 7 7

PILGRIM 2 3 5 2 3

POINT BEACH 1 & 2 7 5 6 5 7

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 & 2 2 1 3

QUAD CITIES 1 & 2 11 9 5 6 1

RIVER BEND 2 1 9 2 1

ROBINSON 2 1 1

SALEM/HOPE CREEK 189113

SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 21 7 15 15 7

SEABROOK 34233

SEQUOYAH 1 & 2 94472

SOUTH TEXAS 1 & 2 11 10 13 10 4

ST LUCIE 1 & 2 64 27 36 9 27

SUMMER 2 1 3 3

SURRY 1 & 2 1 1 4 2

SUSQUEHANNA 1 & 2 23 8 8 13 15

THREE MILE ISLAND 3 1 5

TURKEY POINT 3 & 4 18 12 11 12 11

VERMONT YANKEE 2 9 2

VOGTLE 1 & 2 9 2 3 1

WATERFORD 9 4 4 2 2

WATTS BAR 13 6 6 4 4

WOLF CREEK 148664
24

APPENDIX 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGATION PROCESS
25

DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGATION PROCESS

All of the regions and offices generally follow the same basic process in receiving, processing,

and evaluating allegations. The Allegation Coordinator is the focal point for receiving,

processing, and closing allegations and communicating with allegers. All incoming written

allegations are forwarded to the Allegation Coordinator and calls to the toll-free safety hotline

are directed automatically to the regional Allegation Coordinators according to the geographical

location of the caller, i.e., an alleger's call is directed to the region that covers the alleger’s

location.

The Allegation Coordinator reviews the incoming allegations to determine whether the issues

involve reactor, material, or vendor issues and the immediacy of safety issues. An Allegation

Review Board (ARB) is scheduled on the basis of this review. The Allegation Coordinator

prepares the material for the ARBs, guides the ARB members on implementing the allegation

process, and keeps the minutes for the ARB meetings. ARBs normally meet once a week and

allegations are usually discussed within 2 weeks of receipt. Following the ARB meeting, the

Allegation Coordinator notes the directions to the staff in the allegation tracking system. The

responsible division director or a designee chairs the ARB. Other ARB participants include

technical staff and managers and, in cases involving wrongdoing, the regional counsel and a

representative from the Office of Investigations (OI) field office. Letters acknowledging receipt

of the allegation are usually sent to allegers after the ARB meets. 

The assignment of allegations for evaluation and closure varies slightly between the regions

and offices. Generally, the technical staff evaluates technical allegations and sends a copy of

an inspection report or a memorandum to the Allegation Coordinator with the result of the

evaluation. The Allegation Coordinator reviews the information and, if all of the issues have

been sufficiently addressed, prepares a closure letter to the alleger based on the information

provided. If the issues have not been addressed, the allegation and the evaluation are usually

discussed at a subsequent ARB meeting to determine what additional actions are necessary to

complete the evaluation and close the allegation.

For wrongdoing issues for which OI completes an investigation and determines whether the

allegation was substantiated, the report of investigation serves as a basis for responding to the

alleger. The responsible technical division will review the OI report and will either provide input

to or prepare a draft closure letter to the alleger. If OI does not complete the investigation to

the point at which OI can determine if wrongdoing occurred, the Allegation Coordinator

prepares a closure letter informing the alleger that because of limited resources and the relative

safety significance of the issue, the investigation was terminated without reaching a conclusion

about whether wrongdoing occurred.