STATUS OF ALLEGATION PROGRAM

FISCAL YEAR 2000

ANNUAL REPORT
CONTENTS

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

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

Summary of Audit Results ...............................................3

Region I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Region II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Region III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Region IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

NRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

NMSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Alleger Feedback on Performance ........................................7

Protecting the Identity of Allegers .........................................8

Resources Expended on Allegations .......................................8

Program Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE

ALLEGATION PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Recommendations of Review Team for Reassessment of the NRC's Program for

Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

General Accounting Office Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

TRENDS IN ALLEGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

General Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Allegation Trends at Reactor Licensees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

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

Byron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

St. Lucie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Braidwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Susquehanna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Hatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Callaway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Dresden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Indian Point 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Comanche Peak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Sequoyah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Allegation Trends at Materials Licensees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Allegation Trends at Vendors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

APPENDIX 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

APPENDIX 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
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 the status of recommendations for improving the allegation program, reviews

allegation data for adverse 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.

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

The findings from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 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 2000 audit of the allegation program, the

allegation program achieved an effectiveness rating of 98.7 percent, compared to a rating of 97

percent in FY 1999. Additionally, no inappropriate disclosures of the identity of allegers

occurred in FY 2000, continuing the performance of FY 1999.

After receiving increasing numbers of allegations in FY 1996 and FY 1997, the trend reversed

significantly in FY 1998 with a 24 percent drop in the number of allegations received. The

declining trend continued in FY 1999, but reversed in FY 2000. FY 2000 saw a 10 percent

increase in allegations and 12 percent increase in concerns received compared to FY 1999. 

Based on anecdotal information from allegers and the types of concerns raised, the staff

believes the primary contributors to the increase in the number of allegations and concerns

received in FY 2000 were the mergers within the nuclear power industry and the stresses

created by shorter refueling outages and plans for consolidating activities at the Portsmouth

and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants.

The NRC review team that reassessed the NRC’s program for protecting allegers from

retaliation made 47 specific recommendations in January 1994 addressing how the agency

could improve its program for protecting allegers against retaliation. The staff has completed

action on all of the recommendations. Recommendations completed this fiscal year were (1)

submitting proposed legislation to revise Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

to provide more realistic time frames for the Department of Labor's (DOL’s) review of

discrimination complaints and more immediate remedies when DOL finds discrimination

occurred and (2) providing feedback forms to allegers as one method to assess the

effectiveness of the allegation program.

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 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. For reactor licensees, the staff used the criteria
2

outlined in the October 21, 1997, memorandum to the Commission from the EDO to identify

reactor sites warranting additional review. After applying those criteria, the staff identified

eleven reactor sites for a more in-depth review: D.C. Cook, Byron, St. Lucie, Braidwood,

Susquehanna, Hatch, Callaway, Dresden, Indian Point 2, Comanche Peak, and Sequoyah. 

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 FY 2000

allegation statistics, the review did not identify any other materials licensees warranting

additional review. Also, the FY 2000 allegation statistics indicate that no additional review is

warranted for any vendors or contractors.

Over the last four years, the trend in resources expended on the follow-up of technical

allegations has followed the trend in allegations received. The hours expended on allegation

follow-up decreased from approximately 67,700 in FY 1997 (approximately 51 full time staff or

Full Time Equivalent (FTE)) to 64,050 in FY 1998, representing approximately 49 FTE. This

decrease paralleled the decline in the number of allegations received. The number of

allegations received continued to decline in FY99 and this was reflected in the resources

expended, 47,237 hours or 34.3 FTE. As noted above, the number of allegations received in

FY 2000 increased 10 percent. The number of hours expended increased 20 percent to

56,749, or 44.2 FTE. The disproportionate increase in hours expended is discussed in more

detail in the report.

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. However,

continued 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 mechanism for the staff to track concerns

submitted to the NRC to ensure that safety-significant concerns are evaluated and resolved in a

timely manner, and that the results of NRC’s actions are communicated to the individual who

submitted the concerns, when appropriate.

Summary of Audit Results

The FY 2000 audit results show that, overall, the implementation of the allegation program

continues to improve in the areas of timeliness and quality of communications with allegers,

documenting concerns and the bases for closing allegations, quality of technical review and

resolution, maintaining a status of the resolution of concerns, timeliness of allegation review

boards (ARB) meetings, and the timeliness of resolving allegations. The improvements in

timeliness noted during the audits are corroborated by the performance indicators. However,

management needs to continue to be attentive to the quality of the technical review and

avoiding unnecessary delays in resolving individual allegations. 

The FY 2000 audits consisted of a review of a sample of closed allegation files and discussions

with the Allegation Coordinators and other staff members concerning specific allegations and

the allegation process. The selected allegations included technical and wrongdoing issues

involving contractors and reactor, materials, and Agreement State licensees. The goal for the

sample size was 10 percent of the total number of allegations received during the

approximately one-year audit period. The actual sample size varied slightly from the goal,

depending on the complexity of the allegations selected for review and the time available for the

audit.

A summary of the results of the audits of each region, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(NRR), and the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) follows. The

summary includes a discussion of relevant performance indicators. The performance of each

region, NRR, and NMSS in conducting ARB meetings and issuing acknowledgment letters is

compared with the performance goals established in the operating plans for FY 2000. ARBs

are to be conducted within 30 days of receipt of the allegation. Ninety percent of

acknowledgment letters are to be issued within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 days.

Agency performance continued to improve in FY 2000, with all goals met. The goals for closing

technical allegations within 180 days and closing wrongdoing allegations within 540 days, on

average, were met at 106 days and 344 days respectively. Figure 1, on the next page, shows

the distribution of the time it took to close technical allegations, in 30 day intervals. The figure

also shows the significant improvement in the time to close that has occurred over the last four

fiscal years. To complete the picture, Figure 2 shows the age of technical allegations that are

currently open. In some of the regions or offices, the average time to close in FY 2000 was

slightly more than in FY 1999. As resources are stretched, the regions and offices are trying to

include the followup of allegations in previously scheduled inspections in an attempt to use their

resources more efficiently. 
4

DAYS TO CLOSE

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

FISCAL YEAR RECEIVED

FY2001 FY2000

TIME OPEN - TECHNICAL ALLEGATIONS

FIGURE 2

The goals of issuing 90 percent of the

acknowledgment letters within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 days were met. This is an

improvement over FY 1999, when one acknowledgment letter was issued after the 45-day goal. 

Additionally, the goal of conducting all ARBs within 30 days was met.

In addition to timeliness goals, the staff instituted an effectiveness goal for the allegation

program for FY 1999 and beyond. 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. For FY 2000, 98.7 percent of the allegations reviewed appropriately captured and

responded to each issue in the allegation. During the FY 2000 audits, the staff found that out of

the 78 allegations reviewed, one issue in one allegation was not adequately addressed in the

closure letter to the alleger. This oversight was noted by the responsible region during a routine

quality check and the issue was addressed in a followup letter that was issued prior to the audit. 

Although the region found and corrected its error, the goal of addressing all the issues in the

closure letter was not met.

Region I

Region I's implementation of the allegation program was audited in April 2000; 15 allegation

files were reviewed. The audit indicated that the region’s implementation of the allegation

program is very good. The regional staff responded very quickly to allegations with safety

significance. These allegations were brought to an ARB and evaluated expeditiously. 

Allegations were thoroughly reviewed and bases for closure were well documented. This is

supported by 

Region I achieving 100 percent with respect to the effectiveness goal. For the 15 allegations

reviewed, the region had addressed all the concerns. The quality of the correspondence with

allegers was also very good.

The timeliness of acknowledgment letters and initial ARB meetings continued to be very good. 

During FY 2000, Region I held 147 initial ARB meetings and issued 106 acknowledgment

letters. All ARBs were held within 30 days. The region issued 99 percent of the

acknowledgment letters within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 days. This is a continuation

of the region’s performance in FY 1999.
5

The region's average time to close technical allegations has improved during the last six years,

decreasing from 157 days in FY 1994 to 90 days in FY 1999. The average time to close in FY

2000 was 94 days. This compares very favorably with the agency's goal of 180 days. Overall,

the region is doing a very good job of responding to allegations.

Based on the audit, the one area in which the region needed to improve its performance was

the proper recording of time spent on allegation follow-up. For three of the six allegations for

which time charges were reviewed, no time was charged to allegation follow-up. The region

conducted an extent of condition review by examining time charged on 16 additional allegations

that identified some additional examples. As a result of the audit and the results of the internal

review, the region issued additional guidance and conducted additional training on the proper

reporting of time spent on allegations. At the end of each ARB, the staff is reminded again to

properly report their time.

Region II

Region II's implementation of the allegation program was audited in March 2000; 11 allegation

files were reviewed. The audit indicated that the region’s implementation of the allegation

program is very good. The regional staff responded very quickly to allegations with safety

significance. These allegations were brought to an ARB and evaluated expeditiously. 

Allegations were thoroughly reviewed and bases for closure were well documented. However,

the audit noted that one concern had not been adequately addressed in the closure letter to the

alleger. During a routine quality check the region discovered the oversight and sent another

letter to the alleger addressing the concern. The second letter was sent two months after the

initial letter. As a consequence, Region II received a rating of 91 percent with respect to the

effectiveness goal.

During FY 2000 Region II held 161 initial ARB meetings and issued 112 acknowledgment

letters. All ARBs were held within 30 days. The region issued 97 percent of the

acknowledgment letters within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 days. During FY 1999, all

ARBs met within 30 days and the region issued 99 percent of the acknowledgment letters

within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 days.

In the last six years, Region II has significantly improved the average time to close technical

allegations. From FY 1994 to FY 1999 the region's average has ranged from 203 days to 94

days, respectively. For FY 2000, the region’s timeliness was 98 days. This compares very

favorably with the agency's goal of 180 days. Overall, the region is doing a very good job

responding to allegations.

Based on the audit, the one area in which the region needed to improve its performance was

the proper recording of time spent on allegation follow-up. For two of the six allegations for

which time charges were reviewed, no time was charged to allegation follow-up. The region

provided additional training to the inspectors and reemphasized to the branch chiefs the

importance of verifying that inspectors are properly reporting time spent on allegations.
6

Region III

Region III's implementation of the allegation program was audited in March 2000; 22 allegation

files were reviewed. The audit indicated that the region’s implementation of the allegation

program is very good. The regional staff responded very quickly to allegations with safety

significance. These allegations were brought to an ARB and evaluated expeditiously. 

Allegations were thoroughly reviewed and bases for closure were well documented. This is

supported by Region III achieving 100 percent with respect to the effectiveness goal. For the

22 allegations reviewed, the region had addressed all the concerns. The quality of the

correspondence with allegers was also very good. Additionally, the auditors found the staff to

be appropriately charging time spent on allegation follow-up.

During FY 2000, Region III held 222 initial ARB meetings and issued 159 acknowledgment

letters. All of the ARBs were held and all of the acknowledgment letters were issued within 30

days. This year’s performance is a continuation of last year’s performance. 

During the 5-year period of FY 1994 through FY 1999, the region's average time to close

technical allegations oscillated, with a low of 107 days and a high of 125 days. For FY 2000,

the average was 120 days, well within the agency’s goal of 180 days, on average. The

increase from the 107-day average for FY 1999 is largely due to the increase in workload due

to the increase in the number of allegations Region III received this fiscal year. Overall, the

region is doing a very good job responding to allegations.

Region IV

Region IV's implementation of the allegation program was audited in April 2000; 20 allegation

files were reviewed. The regional staff responded very quickly to allegations with safety

significance. These allegations were brought to an ARB and evaluated expeditiously. 

Allegations were thoroughly reviewed and bases for closure were well documented. This is

supported by Region IV achieving 100 percent with respect to the effectiveness goal. For the

20 allegations reviewed, the region had addressed all the concerns. The quality of the

correspondence with allegers was also very good. Additionally, the auditors found the staff to

be appropriately charging time spent on allegation follow-up.

During FY 2000, Region IV held 178 initial ARB meetings and issued 110 acknowledgment

letters. All of the ARBs met within 30 days. The region issued 96 percent of the

acknowledgment letters within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 days. This compares well

with FY 1999 in which all of the ARBs met within 30 days, 99 percent of the acknowledgment

letters were issued within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 days. 

The region's average time to close technical allegations has ranged from a low of 81 days in

FY94 to a high of 111 days in FY97, with an FY98 average of 103 days. For FY 2000, the

average time to close technical allegations was 105 days, an improvement over the 112-day

average for FY 1999, and well within the agency’s goal of 180 days. Overall, the region is

doing a very good job responding to allegations.
7

NRR

NRR’s implementation of the allegation program was audited in April 2000; 8 allegation files

were reviewed. The NRR staff responded well to allegations with safety significance. These

allegations were brought to an ARB and evaluated expeditiously. Allegations were thoroughly

reviewed and bases for closure were well documented. This is supported by NRR achieving

100 percent with respect to the effectiveness goal. For the eight allegations reviewed, the

office had addressed all the concerns. The quality of the correspondence with allegers was

also very good. Additionally, the auditors found the staff to be appropriately charging time

spent on allegation follow-up.

During FY 2000, NRR held 55 initial ARB meetings and issued 39 acknowledgment letters. All

of the ARBs were held within 30 days. NRR issued 97 percent of the acknowledgment letters

within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 days. This compares well with FY 1999 in which all of

the ARBs met within 30 days, 96 percent of the acknowledgment letters were issued within 30

days, and 100 percent within 45 days. 

NRR's average time to close technical allegations has varied depending on how many older

allegations are closed in a given year. The average time to closure has ranged from 346 days

in FY95 to 102 days in FY 2000. Overall, NRR is doing a very good job responding to

allegations.

NMSS

NMSS’ implementation of the allegation program was audited in March 2000; two allegation

files were reviewed. The NRR staff responded well to allegations with safety significance. 

These allegations were brought to an ARB and evaluated expeditiously. Allegations were

thoroughly reviewed and bases for closure were well documented. This is supported by NMSS

achieving 100 percent with respect to the effectiveness goal. For the two allegations reviewed,

the office had addressed all the concerns. The quality of the correspondence with allegers was

also very good. Additionally, the auditors found the staff to be appropriately charging time

spent on allegation follow-up. 

During FY 2000, NMSS held 38 initial ARB meetings and issued 24 acknowledgment letters. 

All initial ARBs met within 30 days and all acknowledgment letters were issued within 30 days. 

This is a continuation of the office’s performance in FY 1999. Additionally, NMSS achieved a

rating of 100 percent for the effectiveness goal. NMSS' average time to close technical

allegations has ranged from 42 days in FY95 to 174 days in FY98. The average time to close

technical allegations for FY 2000 was 95 days. Overall, NMSS is doing a very good job of

implementing the allegation program.

Alleger Feedback on Performance

During FY 2000, the staff closed 733 allegations that included correspondence with an alleger.

The staff was contacted 22 times by an alleger after the alleger had received a letter explaining

the actions taken by the staff to follow-up on the issues raised and the findings concerning

those issues. In each case the staff reviewed information provided by the alleger to determine

if any of the information impacted the actions taken and conclusions reached by the staff. With
1 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.

8

the exception of two cases that are still under review, the staff determined it had adequately

addressed the issues.

The staff is implementing a more independent and comprehensive feedback mechanism. For

allegations received after October 1, 2000, the staff is enclosing a feedback form in all letters

that inform allegers of the results of the staff’s review. The feedback form will provide more

complete and quantitative data on the performance of the allegation program. The use of the

survey form was approved for a one-year trial program. At the conclusion of the trial period, the

staff will inform the Commission of the feedback and make a recommendation on the value of

continuing to provide a feedback form to all allegers or other options.

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. During FY 2000, the staff is not aware of any instances in

which it inappropriately disclosed the identity of any allegers. Given the importance of

protecting the identity of allegers’ identities, personal responsibility and accountability continues

to be emphasized in training sessions with the staff. 

Resources Expended on Allegations

Lesson 5 from the River Bend Review Team noted that resource expenditure on the handling of

allegations by the headquarters and regional staff needs to be fully documented in the agency’s

automated data processing systems and that the current level of resources being spent on

handling allegations needs to be periodically evaluated. As noted in the section on audit

results, there is room for additional improvement in accurately recording time spent on followup

of allegations.

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 licensees1

 from FY 1995 through FY 2000. The graph shows a significant

increase in the hours expended on technical allegations from FY 1995 through FY 1997, rising

from 30,897 hours to 67,668 hours, or 51 FTE. The trend changes in FY 1998 and FY 1999

with decreases to 64,050 hours and 47,232 hours, respectively. The trend reversed in FY 2000

with an increase to 56,749 hours. As noted below, the changes are most heavily influenced by

the changes in the hours expended on allegations concerning reactors. 

In consideration of trends at the time the FY 1999 budget was developed, NRR increased the

resources budgeted for the followup of reactor-related technical allegations in FY 1999 to 45.5

FTE. In developing the operating plan for FY 1999, the staff considered the decline in

allegations received in FY 1998 and adjusted the number of FTE allocated for allegation

followup to 43.5. The NRC actually expended 34.3 FTE (42,812 hours) following up on reactorrelated allegations in FY 1999. For FY 2000, the staff budgeted 44.9 FTE, approximately
2 The labor rate is calculated by dividing the number of hours expended on closing reactor -

related issues during the fiscal year by the number of reactor-related issues that are closed in the fiscal

year. The hours include the time spent by the technical staff and the allegation coordinators, but does

not include the time spent by the Agency Allegation Advisor or the Assistant Agency Allegation Advisor.

9

56,472 hours, for the followup of reactor-related technical allegations. For FY 2000, the staff

expended 47,718 hours for the followup of reactor-related technical allegations.

The reason for the large increase in the number of hours expended on closing reactor-related

allegations was explored further by looking at total hours expended and the labor rate2

 for each

region and NRR for FY 1998, FY 1999, and FY 2000. 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, labor rates were calculated on a per issue basis rather

than a per allegation basis. Figure 5 displays the total hours expended and Figure 6 displays

the labor rates for each region and NRR for FY 1998, FY 1999, and FY 2000.

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

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

bases for nuclear power plants and generic issues that sometimes involve a class of plants,
10

e.g., all Westinghouse pressurized water reactors. However, this alone does not totally explain

the large increase in the labor rate experienced in FY 2000. NRR management is still exploring

the reasons for the increase.

For the materials-related allegations, NMSS increased the budgeted resources for follow-up of

materials-related allegations to 5.4 FTE, based on a rising number of allegations received at the

time the FY 1999 budget was being developed. The staff actually expended 4 FTE (5420

hours) on allegation follow-up of materials related allegations in FY 1999. For FY 2000, NMSS

budgeted 4.6 FTE, approximately 6210 hours, for allegation follow-up. With the increase in

materials related allegations in FY 2000, the staff expended 9031 hours on allegation follow-up. 

With the lead time necessary for preparing budget estimates, the staff’s assumptions will

continue to lag actual expenditures in volatile areas like allegations due to the difficulty in

predicting how many allegations will be received.

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

hours expended on allegation followup. 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. The audits found examples in which the staff still is not

recording all of the hours expended on allegation followup. This indicates the labor rates are

likely to increase if the recording of hours expended is more accurate.

Program Enhancements

To improve the implementation of the program and to attempt to measure the outcomes of the

allegation program, the staff completed the following actions during the year:

 Allegation Guidance Memorandum (AGM) 2000-01 was issued on July 5, 2000. This

AGM was issued to add definitions for “discrimination” and “Prima Facie” and to clarify

guidance on (1) responding to requests for information submitted under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA), (2) issuing letters to allegers on the status of NRC’s review of

their issues, (3) standard responses to issues submitted by e-mail, and (4) what to do

when an individual submits additional issues.

 The staff completed actions necessary to receive approval from the Office of

Management and Budget to issue a survey to allegers that requests their input on the

performance of the allegation program. The survey will be used to attempt to measure

the outcome of the allegation program for allegations received in FY 2001.

On the basis of the results of the FY 2000 audits and the allegation program performance

indicators as of September 30, 2000, the changes made to the allegation program in the last

five years continue to have a positive affect on the allegation program.
11

STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE

ALLEGATION PROGRAM

Recommendations of Review Team for Reassessment of the NRC's Program for Protecting

Allegers Against Retaliation

On January 7, 1994, the review team issued its report, NUREG-1499, "Report of the Review

Team for Reassessment of the NRC's Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation." 

The review team made 47 specific recommendations addressing how the agency could

strengthen its program for protecting allegers from retaliation. The staff has completed action

on all 47 recommendations. The two recommendations that were completed this fiscal year

were II.C-2, support legislative changes to Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of

1974, and II.B-8, develop a standard form to be included with alleger closeout correspondence

to solicit feedback on the NRC's handling of a given concern.

(1) Recommendation II.C-2 stated that the Commission should support legislation to amend

Section 211 to produce more realistic timeliness goals for completing steps in the DOL

process for investigating and litigating discrimination complaints. 

The draft legislation was submitted jointly by DOL and the NRC on March 14, 2000.

(2) Recommendation II.B-8 stated that NRC should develop a standard form to be enclosed

in alleger closeout correspondence to solicit feedback on the NRC's handling of a given

concern.

As of October 1, 2000, the staff has initiated a one-year trial program of providing 

feedback forms in all letters informing the alleger of the result of the staff’s review. For

allegations received on or after October 1, 2000, the staff will include a survey form in

the envelope with the closure letter. At the conclusion of the trial period, the staff will

make a recommendation to the Commission on the need to continue providing a

feedback form to all allegers or to move to a periodic survey.

General Accounting Office Recommendations

The General Accounting Office (GAO), in its report "NUCLEAR EMPLOYEE SAFETY

CONCERNS – Allegation System Offers Better Protection, but Important Issues Remain," made

specific recommendations for improving the timeliness of the DOL’s allegation processing, the

NRC's ability to monitor the allegation process, and the NRC's knowledge of the work

environment at nuclear power plants. At the beginning of FY 2000, two recommendations

remained open. The two recommendations that remained open were GAO endorsements of

the two recommendations from the NRC review team that are discussed in the section above. 

These recommendations are now closed.

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
12

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 fiscal year to

support the annual report and in the third quarter to support the annual assessment meeting. 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 that follow are based on

allegations from onsite sources.

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

7 and 8 below show the 4-year national trends. For FY 2000, it is evident from Figure 7 that

allegations regarding materials licensees are a larger percentage of the total number of

allegations. This increase is almost entirely due to the increase in the number of allegations

concerning the Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants. From Figure 8, one can see

that the number of allegations involving discrimination or other types of wrongdoing has

remained fairly constant as the total number of allegations has declined.
13

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

organizations 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 four 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. 

Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12 show the shift of allegation workload in the regions. With the NRC’s

budget prepared two years in advance, budgeted resources may not reflect the actual workload

in the organization when you have shifts in workload as you see in allegations.
14

To provide further insights into the areas in which the NRC is spending resources on reactorrelated allegation followup, the following graphs depict the nine or ten areas that represent

approximately 80 percent of the issues received in that office or region.

EP - Emergency Preparedness

EQ - Environmental Qualification

FFD - Fitness For Duty

HP - Health Physics

I&C - Instrumentation & Control

QA - Quality Assurance
15

Figure 13 provides a breakdown of allegations received by categories of sources for the last

three years. What these graphs indicate is that while there may be a shift from one year to the

next, there are no large shifts in one direction over the three-year period. 

Two 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 at Reactor Licensees

For reactor licensees, statistics on allegations received from October 1995 through September

2000 by operating reactor site are given in the tables in Appendix 1. The tables include

allegations received, discrimination allegations received, and allegations substantiated

The NRC received 467 allegations concerning reactor licensees or their contractors in FY 2000,

involving 1037 individual concerns. This represents a 5 percent increase in reactor-related

allegations received and a 10 percent increase in concerns received, when compared to 

FY 1999 statistics. The NRC received 445 allegations concerning reactor licensees or their

contractors in FY 1999, involving 945 individual concerns.

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 1.5 times the median value for the industry, but

does not exceed two times the median, and there is a 50 percent increase in the number of

allegations received over the previous year.
16

2) The number of allegations received exceeds 2 times the median value, but does not exceed

3 times the median, and there is a 25 percent increase in the number of allegations received

over the previous year. 

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

The eleven reactor sites that met one of these criteria are D.C. Cook (24), Byron (22), 

St. Lucie (16), Braidwood (16), Susquehanna (13), Hatch (12), Callaway (12), Dresden (9),

Indian Point 2 (8), Comanche Peak (7), and Sequoyah (7). D.C. Cook, Byron, St. Lucie,

Braidwood, and Susquehanna each exceeded 3 times the industry median of four allegations. 

Hatch, Callaway, and Dresden exceeded 2 times the median and experienced more than a 25

percent increase in the number of allegations concerning the site. Indian Point 2, Comanche

Peak, and Sequoyah exceed 1.5 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.

D.C. Cook

During the 5-year period analyzed (FY 1996 through FY 2000), the number of allegations

submitted by onsite sources was at or below the median in FY 1996 and FY 1997. The NRC

received 12 allegations from onsite sources in FY1998, 17 in FY 1999 and 24 in FY 2000. This

trend is consistent with trends exhibited by other plants that have been in extended shutdowns. 

The number of allegations submitted to the NRC tends to rise as the plant gets closer to startup

and the workforce is reduced to a size needed for an operating unit.

The number of discrimination allegations was low at D.C. Cook from FY 1996 through FY 1998. 

The NRC received one or two discrimination allegations in each of those years. However, in FY

1999 the NRC received six allegations of discrimination and in FY 2000 five allegations of

discrimination were received. In May 2000, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation for a

discriminatory act 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. 

As of December 1, 2000, six allegations of the discrimination allegations concerning D.C. Cook

were still open. One of the open allegations was received in FY 1996 and is open pending a

decision by DOL’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) concerning an Administrative Law

Judge’s (ALJ’s) decision that discrimination for raising safety concerns was not a factor in the

termination of employment of a security guard.

While the number of allegations of discrimination has increased in the last two years, as of

December 1, 2000, no additional discrimination concerns have been substantiated. A review of

the specific issues raised and the organizations involved indicates there are no discernable

trends. There are no indications in the information available from allegations that employees

are afraid to raise issues within the company or externally. This conclusion is further supported
17

by the fact that for slightly more than 50 percent of the allegations received by the NRC, the

alleger was willing to have the NRC refer some of the issues to the licensee for review and

response. The staff views this as a positive indication of the work environment. The staff will

continue to monitor the outcome on the open discrimination allegations and the general

allegation trend.

Byron

During the 5-year period analyzed (FY 1996 through FY 2000), the number of allegations

received from onsite sources increased fairly steadily from 3 in FY 1996 to 22 in FY 2000. The

number of allegations of discrimination increased significantly in FY 2000, rising from one in FY

1996, one in FY 1998, and one in FY 1999, to five in FY 2000. Although no discrimination

allegations have been substantiated in the last three years, as of December 1, 2000, there were

four open discrimination allegations.

As a result of allegations received in the later part of FY 1998, the staff asked the licensee to

address specific examples of what appeared to be behavior by supervisors and mangers at

Byron that may discourage employees 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 ComEd sites. The issue was also a topic of discussion at a meeting with

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

their internal assessments, employees at Byron are comfortable raising safety concerns.

An area that appears to indicate that employees are more comfortable with the licensee’s

approach to issues is the increase in the number of times employees are willing to have

allegations referred to the licensee for review and resolution. In FY 2000, allegers agreed to

refer at least some of the issues to the licensee for review, evaluation, and response 78 percent

of the time. Slightly more than 51 percent of the individual issues were referred to the licensee. 

This compares favorably with the national rate of referral for reactor issues of 48 percent for

allegations and 36 percent for individual issues. The staff will continue to monitor the outcome

on the open discrimination allegations and the general allegation trend.
18

St. Lucie

From FY 1996 through FY 2000, the number of allegations received from onsite sources has

steadily declined, 61 in FY 1997, 33 in FY 1998, 31 in FY 1999, and 18 in FY 2000. The

number of allegations of discrimination rose to four in FY 2000, compared to one in FY 1999

and two in FY 1998. While the number of claims of discrimination has risen, there has not been

a substantiated case of discrimination since 1996. One allegation of discrimination was open

as of December 1, 2000. 

Although St. Lucie met the criteria for additional review based on exceeding three times the

median number of allegations for the industry, the trend in allegations received is declining. A

review of the specific issues raised and the organizations involved indicates there are no

discernable trends. There are no indications in the information available from allegations that

employees are reluctant to raise issues within the company or externally. The staff will continue

to monitor the outcome on the open discrimination allegation and the general allegation trend.

Braidwood

During the 5-year period analyzed (FY 1996 through FY 2000), the number of allegations

received from onsite sources oscillated from FY 1996 through FY 1999. The number increased

in years there was a refueling outage. This oscillation is common in the industry and is in large

part due to the increase in the number of contractors employed during outages. However, in

FY 2000, the NRC received 17 allegations from onsite sources, compared to nine in FY 1999. 

From a review of the issues, a large contributor to the increase in the number of allegations

received in FY 2000, was licensee employees’ concern with the amount of overtime being

worked during outages and the licensee’s approach to evaluating whether an employee was too

fatigued to work scheduled overtime. 

The number of allegations of discrimination remained fairly low throughout the period, with two

received in FY 1997, FY 1998, and FY 2000. There has not been a substantiated allegation of

discrimination in the last five years. There were no open allegations of discrimination as of

December 1, 2000.

Although Braidwood met the criteria for additional review based on exceeding three times the

median number of allegations for the industry, there are no indications in the information

available from allegations that employees are reluctant to raise issues within the company or

externally. The staff will continue to monitor the general allegation trend.

Susquehanna

During the 5-year period analyzed (FY 1996 through FY 2000), the number of allegations

received steadily trended down from 29 in FY 1996 to 7 in FY 1999. However, in FY 2000, the

number of allegations received from onsite sources rose to 13. A review of the issues

indicates that some employees working in radiation protection felt they were being discouraged

from submitting condition reports. As a result of an NRC investigation into some changes made

to a condition report by a radiation protection supervisor, the NRC identified a potential violation

of
19

 NRC requirements. In a letter dated December 12, 2000, the NRC offered the licensee an

opportunity to meet with the staff to address the changes made to the condition report and the

impact on the willingness of employees to raise issues. These issues will be pursued through

the enforcement process.

The number of allegations of discrimination declined from five in FY 1998 to one in FY 1999

and then rose to two in FY 2000. There has not been a substantiated allegation of

discrimination in the last five years and there were no open allegations of discrimination as of

December 1, 2000. The NRC staff will review the licensee’s view of the work environment in

the radiation protection area as part of the enforcement process and will continue to monitor the

general allegation trend.

Hatch

During the 5-year period analyzed (FY 1996 through FY 2000), the number of allegations

received exhibits an oscillating trend. The NRC received 4 in FY 1996, 15 in FY 1997, 8 in

FY 1998, 9 in FY 1999, and 13 in FY 2000. A review of the issues submitted did not identify

any trends. Both reactors were in refueling outages this fiscal year, which is unusual. This may

have contributed to the rise in the number of allegations. 

Historically, the number of allegations of discrimination concerning Hatch has been very low. 

No allegations of discrimination were received in FY 1996 through FY 1998. In FY 1999 and in 

FY 2000, the NRC received two allegations of discrimination. There has not been a

substantiated allegation of discrimination in the last five years. As of December 1, 2000, there

were two open allegations of discrimination.

Although Hatch met the criteria for additional review based on exceeding three times the

median number of allegations for the industry, there are no indications in the information

available from allegations that employees are reluctant to raise issues within the company or

externally. The staff will continue to monitor the outcome on the open discrimination allegations

and the general allegation trend.

Callaway

During the 5-year period analyzed (FY 1996 through FY 2000), the number of allegations

received were at or below the industry median in FY 1996 through FY 1999. In FY 2000, the

NRC received 12 allegations. A review of the issues submitted did not identify any trends or

insights into the reason(s) for the increase in the number of allegations. From December 1999

through July 2000, the NRC received at least one allegation each month. However, no

allegations were received in the months of August through November.

The number of allegations of discrimination has also been low. In FY 1996, FY 1997, and FY

1999, the NRC received one allegation of discrimination each year. In FY 2000, two allegations

of discrimination were received. There has not been a substantiated allegation of discrimination

in the last five years. There were two open allegations of discrimination as of December 1,

2000.
20

Although Callaway met the criteria for additional review based on exceeding twice the median

number of allegations for the industry and exhibiting a 25 percent increase in the number of

allegations received by the NRC, there are no indications in the information available from

allegations that employees are reluctant to raise issues within the company or externally. The

staff will continue to monitor the outcome on the open discrimination allegations and the general

allegation trend.

Dresden

During the 5-year period analyzed (FY 1996 through FY 2000), the number of allegations

received exhibits an oscillating trend. The NRC received 3 allegations in FY 1996, 11 in 

FY 1997, 11 in FY 1998, 1 in FY 1999, and 8 in FY 2000. A review of the issues received in 

FY 2000 indicates a majority of the issues received concern activities in the health

physics/radiation protection area. 

The number of allegations of discrimination has been low throughout the 5-year period

analyzed. The NRC received one in FY 1996, one in FY 1997, and two in FY 2000. However,

the NRC received three additional allegations of discrimination in November 2000. There has

not been a substantiated allegation of discrimination in the last five years concerning activities

at the operating units at the Dresden site. However, there were four open allegations of

discrimination as of December 1, 2000. All four of the allegations of discrimination result from

activities in the health physics/radiation protection area. 

In September 2000, the NRC issued a Severity Level III violation for a discriminatory act against

a radiation protection technician that worked at Unit 1. However, the discriminatory act

occurred in October 1997 and is not considered indicative of the current work environment at

Unit 1 or the operating units.

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

allegations concerning the health physics/radiation protect area, the outcome of the allegations

of discrimination, and the general allegation trend.

Indian Point 2

During the 5-year period analyzed (FY 1996 through FY 2000), the number of allegations

received exhibits an oscillating trend. The NRC received 6 in FY 1996, 6 in FY 1997, 11 in 

FY 1998, 3 in FY 1999, and 8 allegations in FY 2000. A review of the issues submitted did not

identify any trends or insights into the reason(s) for the increase in the number of allegations. 

The number of allegations of discrimination remained low at one a year for FY 1996, FY 1998,

and FY 1999. In FY 2000, the NRC received four allegations of discrimination. There has not

been a substantiated allegation of discrimination in the last five years. However, as of

December 1, 2000, there were two open allegations of discrimination.

Although Indian Point 2 met the criteria for additional review based on exceeding one and one

half the median number of allegations for the industry and exhibiting more than a 50 percent

increase in the number of allegations received by the NRC, there are no indications in the

information available from allegations that employees are reluctant to raise issues within the
21

company or externally. The staff will continue to monitor the outcome on the open

discrimination allegations and the general allegation trend.

Comanche Peak

During the 5-year period analyzed (FY 1996 through FY 2000), the number of allegations

received exhibits an oscillating trend. The NRC received 5 allegations in FY 1996, 10 in 

FY 1997, 5 in FY 1998, 3 in FY 1999, and 7 in FY 2000. The number of allegations of

discrimination has declined through most of the period. The NRC received one allegation of

discrimination in FY 1996, 3 in FY 1997, 1 in FY 1998, 1 in FY 1999, and none in FY 2000. 

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

are no open allegations of discrimination.

Although Comanche Peak met the criteria for additional review based on exceeding one and

one half the median number of allegations for the industry and exhibiting more than a 50

percent increase in the number of allegations received by the NRC, there are no indications in

the information available from allegations that employees are reluctant to raise issues within the

company or externally. The staff will continue to monitor the general allegation trend.

Sequoyah

During the 5-year period analyzed (FY 1996 through FY 2000), the number of allegations

received exhibits a slow declining trend for most of the period. The NRC received 19

allegations in FY 1996, 9 in FY 1997, 5 in FY 1998, 4 in FY 1999, and 7 in FY 2000. The

number of allegations of discrimination declined from five in FY 1996 to one in FY 1997 and one

in FY 1999. No allegations of discrimination were received in FY 2000. As of December 1,

2000, there were no open allegations of discrimination.

On January 13, 1997, the NRC issued a Severity Level 3 Notice of Violation and a $100,000

civil penalty to the licensee for a discriminatory act that occurred in April 1993. On February 7,

2000, the NRC issued a Severity Level II Notice of Violation to the licensee for a discriminatory

act that occurred in mid-1996. Given the current trends in allegations and the date of the

discriminatory acts mentioned above, the staff does not believe they are indicative of the

current work environment.

Although Sequoyah met the criteria for additional review based on exceeding one and one half

the median number of allegations for the industry and exhibiting more than a 50 percent

increase in the number of allegations received by the NRC, there are no indications in the

information available from allegations that employees are reluctant to raise issues within the

company or externally. The staff will continue to monitor 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 this year. 

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

contractors or licensees received a sufficient number of allegations in FY 2000 to discern an
22

adverse trend or pattern. While there was not a sufficient number of allegations to discern a

trend for specific licensees, grouping the allegations by categories of licensees provides some

insights into the activities in which the NRC is spending resources. The following graph depicts

the number of allegations received by license category and captures approximately 80 percent

of the allegations received.

Decom Materials -

Decommissioning Materials

Site

Decom Reactor -

Decommissioning Reactor

Site

R&D - Research &

Development Company

As noted above, there

were a sufficient

number of allegations

received concerning the

Gaseous Diffusion Plants to trend allegations. From FY 1997 through FY 2000, the number of

allegations received from onsite sources concerning the Paducah site has increased fairly

rapidly, 3 in FY 1997, 9 in FY 1998, 21 in FY 1999, and 30 in FY 2000. The number of

allegations of discrimination received from onsite sources concerning the Paducah site has also

increased, rising from 0 in FY 1997 to 2 in FY 1998, 5 in FY 1999, and 9 in FY 2000. As of

December 1, 2000, there were 29 open allegations of discrimination concerning the Paducah

site. 

From FY 1997 through FY 2000, the number of allegations received from onsite sources

concerning the Portsmouth site has oscillated with 5 received in FY 1997, 12 in FY 1998, 6 in

FY 1999 and 22 in FY 2000. The number of allegations of discrimination received concerning

the Portsmouth facility has also oscillated with 2 received in FY 1997, 3 in FY 1998, 1 in FY

1999, and 3 in FY 2000. As of December 1, 2000, there has not been a substantiated

allegation of discrimination at the Portsmouth site. However, there were seven open allegations

of discrimination at the site.

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

civil penalty to the licensee and a Severity Level II Notice of Violation to the responsible

manager 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
23

to perform a site-wide survey of the work environment at both facilities. At a subsequent public

meeting in June 1998, 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.

Because the work environment appears to be improving and the licensee continues to take

action to foster continuing improvement, no additional actions are planned as a result of this

review. The staff will continue to closely monitor the work environment, the effectiveness of the

corrective actions, and the outcome of the open allegations of discrimination.

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.
24

RECOMMENDATIONS

The staff has no recommendations for program changes at this time. However, the staff is

considering no longer using the screening criteria of one and one half the median number of

allegations with a 50 percent increase. The median number of allegations for reactor licensees

has declined to the point that this criteria may not be useful. Additionally, the staff is

considering substantial revisions to this report because several of the reasons for issuing it are

no longer valid. The staff will be discussing revisions with stakeholders who have an interest in

the report and will make a recommendation to the Executive Director for Operations by June

29, 2001.
25

APPENDIX 1

ALLEGATIONS STATISTICS – OPERATING REACTORS
26

NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED IN FISCAL YEAR

ONSITE SOURCES ONLY

Site 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

ARKANSAS 1 & 2 22325

BEAVER VALLEY 1 & 2 26315

BRAIDWOOD 1 & 2 3 9 6 9 17

BROWNS FERRY 2 & 3 10 12 8 6 3

BRUNSWICK 1 & 2 4 18 17 1

BYRON 1 & 2 2 6 14 17 22

CALLAWAY 4 5 3 2 12

CALVERT CLIFFS 1 & 2 7 4 3 5 4

CATAWBA 1 & 2 4 3 5 3

CLINTON 9 22 13 10 9

COLUMBIA PLANT 12 15 8 4 1

COMANCHE PEAK 1 & 2 5 10537

COOK 1 & 2 2 3 12 15 24

COOPER 9 7 3 3 1

CRYSTAL RIVER 15 17 7 2 5

DAVIS-BESSE 34221

DIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 20 13 14 6 7

DRESDEN 2 & 3 3 11 11 1 8

DUANE ARNOLD 1 1 4

FARLEY 1 & 2 3 2 2 5 7

FERMI 7 7 6 1 4

FITZPATRICK 3 4 5 1 6

FORT CALHOUN 2 4 5 1

GINNA 2 1 2

GRAND GULF 7 2 5 2 2

HARRIS 1 & 2 2 2 7 3 2

HATCH 1 & 2 4 15 8 5 13

INDIAN POINT 2 6 6 11 3 8

INDIAN POINT 3 4 16 6 8 8

KEWAUNEE 1

LASALLE 1 & 2 7 7 9 9 3

LIMERICK 1 & 2 3 7 4 1 2

MCGUIRE 1 & 2 4 1 1 1

MILLSTONE 2 & 3 41 37 32 22 11

MONTICELLO 6 1 2 2

NINE MILE POINT 1 & 2 7 8 15 8 7

NORTH ANNA 1 & 2 5 3

OCONEE 1, 2, & 3 7 2 6 4 2

OYSTER CREEK 4 5 7 9 2

PALISADES 2 3 1

PALO VERDE 1, 2, & 3 14 17 5 6 2

PEACH BOTTOM 2 & 3 4 6 1 1 4

PERRY 7 8 2 6 4
27

PILGRIM 3 2 3 4 3

POINT BEACH 1 & 2 1 9 5 4 5

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 & 2 3 2 1 4

QUAD CITIES 1 & 2 6 7 10 7 6

RIVER BEND 14 6 1 6 5

ROBINSON 1 1 1 1

SALEM/HOPE CREEK 41 21 11 1 1

SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 15 32 7 13 12

SEABROOK 23533

SEQUOYAH 1 & 2 19 9 5 4 7

SOUTH TEXAS 1 & 2 15 13 12 13 11

ST LUCIE 1 & 2 42 61 33 31 18

SUMMER 8 2 4

SURRY 1 & 2 3 1 1 3

SUSQUEHANNA 1 & 2 29 19 15 7 13

THREE MILE ISLAND 4

TURKEY POINT 3 & 4 17 17 15 9 11

VERMONT YANKEE 14721

VOGTLE 1 & 2 5 10 3 3

WATERFORD 24 9 4 4 1

WATTS BAR 28 17 4 6 5

WOLF CREEK 10 13 10 5 6
28

NUMBER OF DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED IN

FISCAL YEAR

ONSITE SOURCES ONLY

Site 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

ARKANSAS 1 & 2 1 1

BEAVER VALLEY 1 & 2 1 1 1

BRAIDWOOD 1 & 2 2 2 2

BROWNS FERRY 2 & 3 3 2 1 3

BRUNSWICK 1 & 2 2 4 1

BYRON 1 & 2 1 1 1 5

CALLAWAY 1 1 1 2

CALVERT CLIFFS 1 & 2 3 2

CLINTON 2 6 5 2 3

COLUMBIA PLANT 3 3 1 1

COMANCHE PEAK 1 & 2 1311

COOK 1 & 2 1 2 1 6 5

COOPER 2

CRYSTAL RIVER 5 1

DAVIS-BESSE 1 1

DIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 4 1 5 3

DRESDEN 2 & 3 1 1 2

DUANE ARNOLD 1

FERMI 4 1

FITZPATRICK 1 1

FORT CALHOUN 1 1

GRAND GULF 1 1 1

HARRIS 1 & 2 1 1

HATCH 1 & 2 2 2

INDIAN POINT 2 1 1 1 4

INDIAN POINT 3 1 2 1 1 1

LASALLE 1 & 2 4 1 2 5 1

LIMERICK 1 & 2 3 1

MCGUIRE 1 & 2 1 1

MILLSTONE 2 & 3 16 10 7 11 4

MONTICELLO 1

NINE MILE POINT 1 & 2 1 2 3 1

NORTH ANNA 1 & 2 1

OCONEE 1, 2, & 3 1 1

OYSTER CREEK 1 1 1 3

PALISADES 1

PALO VERDE 1, 2, & 3 2 1 2 2

PEACH BOTTOM 2 & 3 1 1

PERRY 4 3 1 2

PILGRIM 2 1

POINT BEACH 1 & 2 1 3 2 2 2

QUAD CITIES 1 & 2 2 1 3 1 1
29

RIVER BEND 2 2 2 1

SALEM/HOPE CREEK 11 3 3

SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 4 9 4 2 1

SEABROOK 1 2

SEQUOYAH 1 & 2 5 1 1

SOUTH TEXAS 1 & 2 53194

ST LUCIE 1 & 2 3 2 1 4

SUMMER 1 1

SUSQUEHANNA 1 & 2 1 5 1 2

THREE MILE ISLAND 1

TURKEY POINT 3 & 4 2 1 1 1 1

VERMONT YANKEE 1 1

VOGTLE 1 & 2 1

WATERFORD 9 2 1 2

WATTS BAR 5 6 1 2

WOLF CREEK 3 1 1
30

NUMBER OF SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS

COUNTED IN FISCAL YEAR RECEIVED

Site 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

ARKANSAS 1 & 2 1 4 2

BEAVER VALLEY 1 & 2 1 1

BRAIDWOOD 1 & 2 3 3 2 2

BROWNS FERRY 2 & 3 6 1 1

BRUNSWICK 1 & 2 3 1 1

BYRON 1 & 2 2 1 6 9 10

CALLAWAY 2 2 1 1 2

CALVERT CLIFFS 1 & 2 1

CATAWBA 1 & 2 2 1

CLINTON 5 4 2 1 1

COLUMBIA PLANT 4 3 3

COMANCHE PEAK 1 & 2 5 4 1 1

COOK 1 & 2 1 1 3 3 5

COOPER 10 3 3 1 1

CRYSTAL RIVER 10 1 2

DAVIS-BESSE 3

DIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 6 3 2 2 1

DRESDEN 2 & 3 4 3 2

DUANE ARNOLD 1 2

FARLEY 1 & 2 1 1 1 1 3

FERMI 4 1 3 1

FITZPATRICK

FORT CALHOUN 2 1 1 2

GINNA 2

GRAND GULF 2 2

HARRIS 1 & 2 1

HATCH 1 & 2 4 1 2 1

INDIAN POINT 2 3 4 3

INDIAN POINT 3 1 1 2

KEWAUNEE 1 1

LASALLE 1 & 2 2 4 2

LIMERICK 1 & 2 3

MCGUIRE 1 & 2 1

MILLSTONE 2 & 3 13 1 4

MONTICELLO 1 1

NINE MILE POINT 1 & 2 2 1

NORTH ANNA 1 & 2 2 1

OCONEE 1, 2, & 3 2 1

OYSTER CREEK 2 1 2

PALISADES 1 2

PALO VERDE 1, 2, & 3 9 5 1

PEACH BOTTOM 2 & 3 3 1

PERRY 4 1 3
31

PILGRIM 1 1 2

POINT BEACH 1 & 2 3 3 3 1 1

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 & 2 1 1

QUAD CITIES 1 & 2 5 1

RIVER BEND 7 4 2 1 1

ROBINSON 1 1

SALEM/HOPE CREEK 13 3 1

SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 10 3 2 7 3

SEABROOK 1 1 1

SEQUOYAH 1 & 2 11 1 1 3

SOUTH TEXAS 1 & 2 7 2 2 2

ST LUCIE 1 & 2 27 12 1 5 2

SUMMER 6

SURRY 1 & 2 1

SUSQUEHANNA 1 & 2 14 6 2 3

TURKEY POINT 3 & 4 6 1 3 1 1

VERMONT YANKEE 1 2

VOGTLE 1 & 2 3 2 1

WATERFORD 12 2

WATTS BAR 12 2 2

WOLF CREEK 4 2 3
32

APPENDIX 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGATION PROCESS
33

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.