Issue Date: 06/28/02 - 1 - 40002

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 |
40002 - 2 - Issue Date: 06/28/02

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, “Management of Allegations. “However, 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

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 “red 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.
Issue Date: 06/28/02 - 3 - 40002

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 “off-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 “off-the-record,” may be used by NRC for

any official purpose. |

Specific Guidance

03.01 Pre-inspection activities. 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
40002 - 4 - Issue Date: 06/28/02

| 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. 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
Issue Date: 06/28/02 - 5 - 40002

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.
40002 - 6 - Issue Date: 06/28/02

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, “Management

| 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