NRC Allegation Pro

Enhancements

Public Meeting - Panel Discu

Interim Allegation Program 

Friday, February 13, 2009 
IntroductionBruce Mallett, Deputy Executive Directoand Preparedness Programs andChair, Senior Executive Review Panel - PLessons Learned
Introduction

• Allegations are an important source of info

NRC and a robust program is in place to aconcern received

– Program established 1982– Identity protection - cornerstone of program– NRC evaluates alleger feedback concerning allegat

• NRC continually assesses program effect

– Self- and AAA Assessments– Annual Reports publicly available– Event reviews

• 2007 Peach Bottom event - prompted staff eval

if existing programs were followed and if additiohave prevented what occurred or improved the 

• Interim enhancements implemented re: A

– External stakeholder input sought
Topics for Discussion• Contacting allegers (who provide contact 

request no further contact with NRC)

• Considering whether to issue an allegatio

Request for Information (RFI) to a license

• Content of RFI letter to licensee• Guidance for NRC staff review of licensee• Is there a way to share the basis for alleg

others who may have the same concern? 
Discussion TopicsLisamarie Jarriel, Agency Allegation Adv
• Circumstance

– Alleger provided contact info but requested no – Additional detail from the alleger could have be

follow-up efforts by NRC and licensee

• Interim Guidance - contact each alleger, e

further contact is requested to :

– Encourage alleger’s continued involvement (re

correspondence, opportunity to provide feedba

– Obtain additional information, if needed– Allow better understanding of identity protectio– Relay NRC intent to issue RFI to licensee, if a

Contacting Allegers
Contacting Allegers• Discussion Topics

– Should the alleger’s initial wishes be honored– What if during the contact, the alleger reiterat

for no contact?

– NRC position is that a need for additional info

an alleger’s request for no contact. Is this ap

– NRC has access to the phone number used 

allegers through "caller ID" for possible use s

be compelled to re-contact the alleger for reahealth and safety. What is the proper etiquetthe caller of this information? 
• Circumstance

– NRC Policy: request from the licensee a writte

allegation concerns as often as is appropriate 

– RFI letter to licensee had limited initial detail a

where security officers may have been inatten

– Consideration of allegers’ identity protection al

amount of detail that could be provided to the 

– Results of initial allegation evaluation may hav

successful if coupled with NRC inspection effo

Considering an RFI to the L
• Interim Guidance

– RFI Policy affirmed– More formalized decision-making– Consider all allegation evaluation options (insp

review; investigation; RFI; combination)

– Consider existing conditions inhibiting RFI (alle

because of ID compromise; investigation compindependence compromised; etc.)

– Consider allegation/inspection trends (past RF

inadequacies; allegation subject/source trendsof limitations in site’s ability to identify and reso

Considering an RFI to the L
• Discussion Topics

– Is RFI an appropriate option for allegation eva– Is sending an RFI letter to the licensee any mo

identify an alleger (than an NRC inspection)?

– Should the criteria used to consider issuing an 

Considering an RFI to the L
• Circumstance

– Detail provided in RFI letter was limited due to 

contact” request and lack of detail about “othesecurity officers may have been inattentive and protection considerations

– Licensee’s response did not indicate how NRC 

regard to thoroughness and objectivity were m

– Licensee did not clarify that interviews were of 

and depth

RFI Letter to Licensee
• Interim Guidance – RFI letter will request 

– describe evaluator independence and qualifica

evaluation was of sufficient scope and depth; 

– describe the basis for determining number and 

individuals interviewed; provide content of inte

– contact NRC when initiating concern evaluatio

common understanding of allegation scope anexpectations for licensee follow-up 

– provide any necessary additional specific infor– identify any violations of NRC requirements

RFI Letter to Licensee
• Discussion Topics

– Besides the telephone call directed by the inte

should be the licensee’s level of interaction wit

the evaluation?

– What precautions can be taken to ensure the c

the licensee:

• Provides proper guidance without restrictin

licensee’s response?

• Doesn’t compromise the alleger’s identity?

RFI Letter to Licensee
• Circumstance

– initial allegation concerns were not substantiat– NRC staff review of licensee RFI responses w– Existing guidance for NRC staff review of licen

was general

• Interim Guidance

– establishes more specific guidance for NRC st

licensee RFI responses; checklist developed

– independently verify aspects of the licensee R– articulates potential staff actions if the licensee

inadequate, inaccurate, or otherwise unacceptinto future RFI considerations)

– closure documentation should clearly docume

the licensee’s evaluation and RFI response (if NRC’s conclusion regarding the allegation

Review of Licensee RFI Res
• Discussion Topics

– What constitutes licensee evaluator “independ– What makes a licensee evaluator qualified to r

allegation?

– What should be the consequences for providin

responses?

• Is refraining from sending RFIs to the licensee i

appropriate NRC reaction to the receipt of inaderesponses?

– If the licensee identifies a violation of NRC req

its evaluation of an RFI, should the violation be licensee-identified or NRC identified?

Review of Licensee RFI Res
• Circumstance

– Since this issue became a public matter, inform

up activity and conclusions about closure of th

concerns were made available to a wider audi

• Interim Guidance

– SERP requested that a discussion be held with 

stakeholders as to whether there is a viable wa

information about the basis for closure of an aothers who may have the same concern(s) 

Can Closure Info Be Share
• Discussion Topics

– What are the advantages/disadvantages of sh

closure information with a wider audience than 

– Do the advantages of sharing allegation closur

outweigh the risk of disclosing the alleger’s ide

– An alleger can share his/her allegation respon

anyone. Is that sufficient?

Can Closure Info Be Share
Resources – Website & ADAMS

• Peach Bottom Lessons Learned Docume

– Peach Bottom Lessons Learned Review Tea

Assessment: ADAMS ML080420566

– Senior Executive Review Panel Report: ADA– Commission Staff Requirements Memorandu

08-0009 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/commission/comm-secy/2008/

– Inspector General Event Inquiry, “NRC’s Res

Related Concerns at Peach Bottom Atomic P

ADAMS ML082460838

– Senior Executive Review Panel Report respo

Inquiry: ADAMS ML082740227

– Allegation Guidance Memorandum 2008-001

Guidance in Response to Lessons Learned fAssessment of Inattentive Security Officers aAtomic Power Station”: ADAMS ML0836402