December 29, 2008 

MEMORANDUM TO: Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region I 

Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator, Region II 

James L. Caldwell, Regional Administrator, Region III 

Elmo E. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV 

Eric J. Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of New Reactors 

Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of Nuclear Security and 

 Incident Response 

Michael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards 

Charles L. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State Materials 

 and Environmental Management Programs 

Guy P. Caputo, Director, Office of Investigations 

THRU: Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director /RA/

 Office of Enforcement 

FROM: Lisamarie L. Jarriel, Agency Allegation Advisor /RA/

Office of Enforcement 

SUBJECT: ALLEGATION GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM 2008-001, “INTERIM 

GUIDANCE IN RESPONSE TO LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE 

ALLEGATION ASSESSMENT OF INATTENTIVE SECURITY 

OFFICERS AT PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION” 

The purpose of this allegation guidance memorandum (AGM) is to provide interim guidance to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff responsible for handling allegations. This 

guidance was developed in response to lessons learned regarding the handling of allegations in 

March 2007 and September 2007 of inattentive security officers at the Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station (Peach Bottom). Lessons learned reviews included an assessment by the 

Agency Allegation Advisor, a Region I review team analysis, and a Senior Executive Review 

Panel (SERP) evaluation of the events related to the Peach Bottom allegations. The 

Commission approved recommendations for enhancing the allegation program resulting from 

these reviews, with additional direction, to discuss pending changes with internal and external 

stakeholders. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) also conducted an Event Inquiry and 

issued a report identifying findings in four areas. A reconvened SERP determined that actions 

identified in the previous SERP report, and approved by the Commission, addressed the four 

areas of findings in the OIG report. The SERP also recommended that certain additional 

actions be taken by the staff to clarify current practices in the policy documents guiding the 

staff’s implementation of the Allegation Program. In the interim, until such time as agency policy 

is updated, discussed with external stakeholders, and has received Commission approval, the 

interim guidance provided herein should be implemented. 
Multiple Addressees 2

 

Background 

In March 2007, the NRC received an allegation from a former contract security manager that 

security officers at Peach Bottom were sleeping on duty due to fatigue caused by excessive 

overtime. In addition to identifying one specific location where the officers were allegedly 

sleeping, the alleger indicated that other, non-specified locations were also being used. The 

alleger requested that the NRC not contact him about the concerns and the staff, respecting this 

request, and following the then existing common practice to honor an alleger request for no 

further contact, the NRC did not contact him further to inquire about other potential locations or 

to discuss other aspects of the concerns and the agency’s proposed handling of them. 

As an option for allegation evaluation, it is the agency’s policy to request from the licensee a 

written evaluation of allegation concerns as often as possible, after considering certain 

conditions. When conditions do not inhibit the NRC from requesting information from the 

licensee with regard to an allegation, this has been considered an effective approach to 

allegation evaluation because the licensees have primary responsibility for ensuring safe 

operation of the facility and can promptly address issues through ready access to site 

personnel, equipment, and documentation related to the concerns. Historically, the agency has 

made such requests for approximately 40% of the allegations received. Employing the agency’s 

current policy, the staff requested that the licensee conduct an evaluation of the specific 

concerns raised in the March 2007 Peach Bottom allegation and provide a written response to 

the NRC for review, including documentation of any corrective actions taken in response to the 

evaluation. The licensee did not substantiate the concerns. The NRC reviewed the licensee’s 

submitted response, gathered some additional information, and similarly was unable to 

substantiate the alleger’s specific concerns. 

Notwithstanding that assessment, in September 2007, the NRC received a second allegation 

from a reporter, which included video evidence of a number of inattentive security officers at 

Peach Bottom in the ready room (a room where security officers not on patrol are allowed to 

read, study, or eat among other things, but must remain ready to respond). The agency 

promptly dispatched an Augmented Inspection Team, and initiated a range of inspection and 

investigative activities to determine the extent of the condition and required corrective actions. 

The NRC assessed the safety significance of this concern and issued a “white” finding with 

cross-cutting aspects in both the Safety Conscious Work Environment and Human Performance 

areas. The agency’s response to this event continues. Since the September 2007 video 

evidence demonstrated that the March 2007 allegation, although less specific, was valid, the 

agency has subsequently conducted several internal reviews in an effort to determine what 

could have been done better in response to the March 2007 allegation and what clarifications 

and/or modifications could be made to the NRC allegation process to provide the staff with 

better opportunities to discover such inappropriate activity earlier. 

Interim Guidance 

Provided below is new or enhanced guidance for the NRC staff responsible for handling 

allegations in the following program areas: Allegation Terminology; Contacting Allegers; 

Licensee-Initiated Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes; Allegation Requests for 

Information; NRC Assessment of Licensee Responses to Requests for Information; Resident 

and Non-Resident Inspector Knowledge of Allegation Activity; Allegation Closure 

Documentation Involving a Licensee Response to a Request for Information; and Alleger 

Responses after Closure. For the purposes of this AGM, the term “licensee” refers to any 
Multiple Addressees 3

 

licensee, certificate holder, license or certificate applicant, or vendor that may be the subject of 

an allegation. 

Much of the information provided below was developed in coordination with and/or as a result of 

discussions among NRC allegation staff and supervision, from headquarters’ and the regional 

offices during periodic team teleconferences and during internal workshops held on February 

26-27, 2008, and September 17-18, 2008, to explore and develop enhancements to the 

Allegation Program and process guidance. Aspects of the guidance below will also be 

discussed with external stakeholders at a future public workshop. 

Allegation Terminology

Management Directive (MD) 8.8, “Management of Allegations,” currently uses the term “referral” 

to describe any instance when an allegation concern (or a concern that is ultimately determined 

not to be an allegation) is assigned to an entity other than the NRC receiving office for initial 

review (e.g., to another NRC office, a State or Local government, another Federal agency, a law 

enforcement agency, or the licensee). Used in this general context, the term “referral” is 

misleading and could be misinterpreted by individuals and external stakeholders not familiar 

with the NRC allegation process to mean that an allegation concern is being turned over in its 

entirety to another entity with no additional NRC oversight or review of the licensee’s evaluation, 

and closure of the concern. To address this potential misconception, more definitive terms have 

been developed to describe how allegations are handled within the agency and to more clearly 

reflect that NRC maintains responsibility and authority to assess and respond to every allegation 

concern. 

Two new terms, Transfer and Request for Information, are described below. The term 

Referral will continue to be used, but in a more specific context as described below. 

Transfer – Involves an NRC internal exchange from the NRC receiving office to the 

responsible NRC program or regional office with responsibility for addressing the 

allegation, i.e., the Action Office. 

Request for Information (RFI) – Used when the Action Office responsible for the 

allegation seeks additional information from the licensee regarding the validity of the 

allegation to enable a complete NRC assessment in response to the allegation. 

Referral – Used when: (1) the NRC receiving office retains the administrative 

responsibility for the allegation-related issue-in-question (i.e., is also the action office) but 

must obtain feedback from another agency or entity in order to respond to the issue (e.g., 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (for offsite emergency preparedness issues)), 

(2) the concern is not under NRC purview (i.e., not an allegation) and is forwarded by the 

NRC receiving office to the appropriate external agency or entity (e.g., Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (for industrial safety issues), Environmental Protection 

Agency (for issues related to Superfund sites), Department of Energy (for radioactive 

materials issues under DOE purview), or (3) the issue-in-question is an NRC staff 

performance concern to be forwarded by the NRC receiving office to the NRC OIG. 

Therefore, an issue is “referred” either (a) to another agency or entity, in part, to obtain 

allegation-related feedback or in its entirety because the issue is not an allegation, or 

(b) to NRC OIG as an NRC staff performance matter. 
Multiple Addressees 4

 

Sample Allegation Acknowledgment and Status Letters are provided in Enclosures 1 and 2 

incorporating the new terminology. 

It is noted that processes are already established within the NRC addressing the circumstance 

when one program or regional office requests input from another program or regional office 

(specifically, Task Interface Agreements for requested input from the Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, or Technical Assistance Requests for requested input from other program offices). 

These processes are also used when an allegation Action Office requires input from another 

program office to support allegation evaluation. 

Contacting Allegers

Engaging the alleger throughout the allegation review process is beneficial because it helps 

ensure that the NRC and the alleger share a mutual understanding of the concerns raised, that 

pertinent information is obtained from the alleger, that the alleger is informed of the NRC plans 

for evaluating the concerns, including the use of an RFI, if appropriate, and that NRC’s 

conclusions regarding the concerns are provided to the alleger after the NRC has completed its 

evaluation, affording an opportunity for alleger assessment and feedback. Although an alleger’s 

involvement is preferred, the agency recognizes that some individuals prefer to remain 

anonymous, or, even when their identity is known, not to be contacted by NRC staff after initially 

raising a concern. This circumstance occurred when NRC received the March 2007 Peach 

Bottom allegation (i.e., the alleger provided identifying and contact information but requested no 

further contact with the NRC). It has been a common NRC practice to honor such a request for 

no further contact. Historically, this has been viewed as a matter of common courtesy so as not 

to alienate the alleger from raising concerns to the NRC in the future, and includes a 

presumption that no further information related to the allegation is needed in order to evaluate 

the concerns raised. After reassessing this past practice, it has been determined that a 

reasonable effort should be made to communicate with an alleger who has requested no further 

contact as NRC begins its allegation evaluation efforts to ensure that all pertinent allegationrelated information is obtained from the alleger and to discuss the value of continued 

involvement in the allegation process. In this regard, the following guidance should be followed: 

If an alleger requests no further contact with the NRC, the responsible branch chief, the 

Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) or other appropriate individual will, as directed by an 

Allegation Review Board (ARB), contact or attempt to contact the alleger: (1) to obtain 

additional information related to the allegation, if needed; (2) to inform the alleger of NRC’s 

plan for evaluating the concern using an RFI, if appropriate, and; (3) to encourage the 

alleger’s continued involvement in the allegation process (i.e., through receipt and review of 

an acknowledgement letter providing NRC’s understanding of the concerns raised and plans 

to address them, and ultimately through receipt of a closure letter affording the alleger an 

opportunity to assess and provide feedback regarding the NRC’s conclusions). Such 

communication should be made verbally, if possible. If, as an outcome of this additional 

contact, the alleger reiterates his or her desire not to participate in the allegation process, 

the agency should honor the request and not provide the alleger with an acknowledgment 

and/or closure letter, but only consider contacting the alleger during the course of the 

evaluation if additional information is needed to evaluate the concerns raised. If the NRC 

employee receiving the allegation explains the advantages of continued involvement in the 

allegation process during the initial discussion with the alleger and the alleger persists in 

requesting no further contact with the NRC, generally an additional attempt to contact the 

alleger will not be made, provided that no additional information is needed. All such 
Multiple Addressees 5

 

communications with the alleger shall be documented in the allegation file. If an alleger 

cannot be contacted or if a decision was reached not to contact the alleger, then upon 

closure of the allegation, the basis for not contacting the alleger will be included in the 

closure memorandum. 

Licensee-Initiated Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes 

The NRC has encouraged employers to develop dispute resolution processes internal to their 

company, similar to the agency’s Early Alternative Dispute Resolution (Early ADR) process 

described in NUREG BR-0313, for use in conjunction with their own employee concerns 

programs (see Federal Register Notice 69 FR 50219 dated August 13, 2004, NRC Enforcement 

Policy; Alternate Dispute Resolution). Although NRC policy recognizes licensee employment of 

such processes, the agency’s correspondence with allegers has not specifically addressed their 

use. Therefore, new standard language has been added to Enclosure 1, “Sample Allegation 

Acknowledgement Letter,” to reflect the following: 

If you utilize your employer’s dispute resolution program to settle a discrimination concern, 

the employer may voluntarily report the settlement to the NRC. If NRC is notified of an 

internal settlement before an investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) is 

initiated, the NRC will request a copy of such a settlement agreement (when completed, if 

negotiations are ongoing) from the employer and review it to determine if it contains any 

restrictive agreements in violation of NRC employee protection regulations. If no such 

restrictive agreements exist, NRC will typically close the discrimination complaint and will not 

perform an OI investigation similar to what is done subsequent to an agreement reached by 

way of NRC-sponsored ADR. 

Allegation Request for Information Worksheet 

Management Directive 8.8 requires a number of issues to be considered when deciding whether 

an allegation concern will be inspected by the NRC technical staff, investigated by NRC OI, 

evaluated by a licensee in follow up to an allegation-related RFI, or whether a combination of 

these actions will be employed. To assist the staff in making this determination and describing 

the basis for the action assigned by the ARB, a worksheet has been developed delineating 

current guidance, as well as additional direction involving the consideration of trends in 

allegations, NRC inspection and investigation history, and other activities. In some cases, it 

may be appropriate to conduct an NRC inspection even though an RFI was sent to the licensee. 

Enclosure 3, “Allegation Review Board Worksheet - Considering a Request for Information to 

the Licensee,” is supplied as guidance for use by the responsible Branch Chief or designee, 

if desired, to support discussion at the ARB when an RFI is being considered. The specific 

ARB decision regarding an RFI and the basis for that decision shall be documented in the 

ARB meeting summary. If the RFI worksheet is used to document the ARB decision 

regarding an RFI, the completed worksheet shall be maintained in the allegation file. 

Allegation Requests for Information Letters to the Licensee

It is NRC’s policy to request from the licensee a written evaluation of allegation concerns (via an 

RFI) in as many cases as possible, because licensees have primary responsibility for ensuring 

safe operation of the facility and can promptly address issues through ready access to site 

personnel, equipment, and documentation related to the concerns. To enable the licensee to 
Multiple Addressees 6

 

conduct a comprehensive evaluation, the letter transmitting the RFI to the licensee should 

include as much specific information as possible about the allegation concern. However, care 

must be taken with the amount of detail provided to the licensee so as not to compromise the 

identity of the alleger. 

MD 8.8 requires that the NRC convey in RFI letters to licensees the staff’s expectation that the 

licensee’s evaluation of allegation concerns be thorough, objective, and of sufficient scope and 

depth to resolve the concerns. The letter requesting information from the licensee is expected 

to inform the licensee of the concern(s) in a level of detail that will enable the licensee to 

effectively evaluate the concern, while continuing to protect the alleger’s identity. In this regard, 

the information provided to the licensee regarding the Peach Bottom allegation of 

inattentiveness was limited in nature to protect the alleger’s identity. However, in so doing, the 

agency did not provide certain information that may have assisted the licensee in its evaluation. 

Furthermore, the NRC determined that the licensee’s response to the agency did not clearly 

indicate how the agency’s expectations with regard to thoroughness and objectivity were met. 

In particular, it was not clear that the interviews of the workforce by the licensee were of 

sufficient scope or appropriately representative of those who may have had knowledge of the 

inattentiveness. Therefore, the following guidance is provided to address these areas: 

If it is not possible to include sufficient detail in the RFI letter without jeopardizing the 

alleger’s identity, the allegation should either be inspected by the NRC in its entirety or 

additional NRC inspection activity should be conducted to supplement information to be 

obtained from the licensee in its response to the RFI. This guidance has been incorporated 

into Enclosure 3, “Allegation Review Board Worksheet - Considering a Request for 

Information to the Licensee.” 

The staff should include the following in the letter transmitting the RFI to the licensee: 

• A request that the licensee specifically address (a) NRC expectations with regard to 

evaluator qualifications and independence, (b) the sufficiency of the evaluation’s scope 

and depth; (c) the basis for determining the number and cross-section of individuals 

interviewed and the interview questions used, if interviews are to be conducted during the 

course of the evaluation; and (d) the adequacy of sample sizes, if samples of 

documentation, systems, structures, or components are to be evaluated during the 

course of the evaluation. The RFI should also request additional specific information 

needed by the NRC to address the concern thoroughly, but in a manner that does not 

limit the licensee’s evaluation; 

• A request that the licensee contact the responsible NRC branch chief or other 

appropriate staff to ensure a common understanding of the scope of the allegation and 

the staff’s expectations for follow-up and response. The licensee shall be requested to 

contact the NRC prior to, or as early into, the licensee’s conduct of the evaluation as 

possible. During this discussion, the staff should be mindful not to dictate specific 

requirements that may restrict or limit the licensee’s response. Rather, this discussion is 

intended to ensure that the actions proposed by the licensee to evaluate the allegation 

concern(s) appear likely to result in a product that meets the NRC’s stated expectations 

and thoroughly addresses the concern(s) raised. If upon completion of this or 

subsequent discussions, it is determined that the licensee’s plan of action is unlikely to 

be successful, the responsible Branch Chief will reconvene the ARB to consider a 
Multiple Addressees 7

 

follow-up telephone call with senior licensee management, or NRC inspection activity. A 

record of the conversation with the licensee shall be included in the allegation file, and; 

• A request that the licensee’s response identify any violations of NRC requirements. 

Enclosure 4, “Sample Allegation Request for Information (RFI) Letter to the Licensee,” 

incorporates the above guidance. 

Checklist for NRC Assessment of Licensee Response to RFIs

The NRC has historically conducted separate reviews and reached independent conclusions 

regarding allegation concerns for which information has been requested from a licensee via an 

RFI. However, guidance to NRC staff for performing this review has not been structured and 

the amount of detail provided by the staff in allegation closure documentation regarding its 

review and conclusions related to allegation concerns involving an RFI response has been 

varied. Lessons-learned reviews of the March 2007 Peach Bottom allegation identified that a 

more structured review process is needed to support the staff’s determination as to whether a 

licensee’s response to an RFI is sufficiently comprehensive and whether any additional NRC 

follow-up action is warranted. 

A checklist (Enclosure 5) has been developed as a reference guide for NRC staff to use, if 

desired, in performing its review of the licensee’s response to an RFI. The checklist outlines 

areas that may be assessed by the staff and includes a number of questions to assist the 

staff reviewer in assessing the adequacy of the RFI response. Attributes that should be 

assessed include: 

• The independence and qualifications of the licensee’s evaluators; 

• The evaluation’s scope and depth (e.g., concerns addressed, questions answered, 

interviews conducted, sample selection, extent of condition/root cause/generic 

implications considered (as appropriate), potential SCWE impact); 

• The licensee=s corrective actions to prevent, alleviate, or correct deficiencies identified; 

• The licensee’s recognition of apparent violations, and; 

• The involvement of potential wrongdoing. 

In addition to the above, the NRC should evaluate the adequacy of the licensee’s RFI 

response by independently verifying aspects of the information provided by the licensee. 

Examples of how this can be accomplished are also provided in the checklist (Enclosure 5) 

and include: 

• Follow-up questions on the material provided; 

• Independent inspection or technical review of certain aspects of the issue; 

• Review of the results of recently conducted NRC inspections in the functional area 

related to the allegation concerns; 
Multiple Addressees 8

 

• Verifying the existence and applicability of technical references, procedures, corrective 

action program documentation, or calculations noted in the licensee’s response. 

The reviewer will inform the responsible branch chief and the OAC of the results of the 

evaluation. If the licensee’s RFI response is determined to be acceptable and, combined 

with any additional relevant information, provides the basis for closure, responsible NRC 

staff will proceed with the development of closure documentation for the allegation concern. 

If it is determined that the licensee’s response is inadequate, inaccurate, or otherwise 

unacceptable, the staff may still proceed to closure if other information is available that 

supports closure of the concern. If, however, additional information is needed and it is 

determined that a substantively different evaluation plan than previously approved by the 

ARB is needed to obtain necessary information, the ARB should be reconvened to discuss 

the proposed alternate action. Such alternate action may include: 

 

• Preparing a supplemental RFI to the licensee, highlighting areas that were not 

adequately responded to in the licensee’s initial response; 

• Conducting an independent NRC inspection; 

• Opening a separate allegation to initiate an OI investigation for an issue involving 

potential wrongdoing; 

• Initiating an OI assist to obtain additional or clarifying information. 

If there are clarifications regarding the licensee’s response to an RFI that can be addressed 

by means of a brief conversation with the licensee, an ARB would not normally need to be 

reconvened. 

If, after discussion with the responsible Branch Chief and the OAC, it becomes apparent that 

there has been a recent history of inadequate RFI responses from a particular site or facility, 

the ARB should consider an appropriate means of notifying the licensee about the 

inadequacies in their RFI responses (e.g., a telephone call to or meeting with licensee senior 

management) and obtaining information from the licensee regarding planned corrective 

actions to address the history of inadequate RFI responses. Actions taken to address the 

inadequacy of a licensee’s response to an RFI should be documented in the allegation file 

and the Allegation Management System (AMS). An action entry entitled “Inadequate 

Licensee RFI Response” has been added to the AMS database for this purpose. The AMS 

description field for this action should indicate the inadequacy and specific additional actions 

taken by the staff. This will allow for a more informative data search regarding the adequacy 

of licensees’ responses to prior RFIs when evaluating the appropriateness of using an RFI 

on future allegations. 

Resident and Non-Resident Inspector Knowledge of Allegation Activity

Resident inspectors communicate current plant conditions daily with responsible NRC 

management and promptly share significant safety and security issues that require immediate 

action or attention. When an immediate safety or security concern is raised through an 

allegation, the resident inspector is informed of the concern by responsible NRC management. 

Resident inspectors, as well as other inspectors, are also periodically assigned by the ARB to 

evaluate specific allegation concerns as part of their inspection activity. However, to limit the 
Multiple Addressees 9

 

dissemination of information that could identify an alleger, the status of all open allegations has 

not historically been made known to all inspection staff. 

Assessment of the March 2007 Peach Bottom allegation identified that improved information 

sharing with both resident and non-resident inspectors regarding allegations may have afforded 

additional opportunities to identify inattentiveness among security officers. Therefore, the 

following guidance is provided to increase the amount of allegation-related information that is 

shared with resident and other, non-resident inspectors while still maintaining appropriate 

protection of allegation-related information and alleger identities. 

The responsible NRC regional manager will, in coordination with the OACs ensure that the 

resident inspectors are informed of all open allegations related to their assigned facility and 

any ARB assigned actions related to the concerns, so that they maintain an awareness of 

asserted concerns as they accomplish daily inspection activities. Similarly, the responsible 

manager will ensure that other inspectors performing an inspection at the facility are 

informed of open allegations and past allegation trends pertaining to areas to be inspected. 

To support this effort, the responsible regional manager may request, for example, an AMS 

report from the OACs of all allegations opened in the previous 12 months that are associated 

with a particular facility and/or area of inspection. 

 

Allegation Closure Documentation Involving a Licensee Response to an RFI

When the staff has completed its evaluation and determined that sufficient information is 

available to determine the validity of the allegation concerns, the assigned technical branch will 

develop an allegation closure document for ultimate incorporation into a closure letter to the 

alleger or closure memorandum to the allegation file, as appropriate. 

The closure documentation should summarize pertinent information from the licensee’s 

response, and specifically describe the staff’s evaluation and conclusions regarding the 

allegation concerns based on all pertinent information, including the licensee’s RFI 

response. In particular, the closure documentation should clearly: 

• Identify each concern as stated in the acknowledgment letter or as modified in more 

recent allegation process correspondence; 

• Describe the licensee’s evaluation and response, and; 

• Document the NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response and overall conclusions 

regarding the validity of the concern. 

The description of NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response should articulate any NRC 

staff independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted to validate 

aspects of the licensee’s response. Specific details should be included as necessary to 

convey the extent of the NRC evaluation. In addition, the description should describe the 

safety/security and regulatory significance of a substantiated concern. 

Enclosures 6, 7, and 8 provide sample closure documents for use when (1) the allegation 

involves other than security-related concerns, (2) the allegation involves security-related 

concerns, and (3) the allegation involves an anonymous alleger, NRC Staff-Suspected or 
Multiple Addressees 10

 

Licensee-Identified Wrongdoing, or an alleger who specifically requests no correspondence 

from the NRC. 

Alleger Responses after Closure

A Response after Closure (RAC) is defined as a verbal or written communication from the 

alleger to the NRC staff indicating that the NRC=s closure of the allegation was, in some way, 

insufficient, inaccurate, or otherwise unacceptable to the alleger. A letter or phone call merely 

thanking the staff for its efforts should not be captured in AMS as a RAC, nor should a follow-up 

action the staff assigns itself, such as informing the alleger of a publicly available inspection 

report related to concerns raised by the alleger. 

Since each RAC indicates that the alleger believes that the NRC response is inadequate in 

some aspect, it is appropriate for the staff to engage NRC senior management in a discussion 

regarding the agency’s response to each alleger providing a RAC. Henceforth, the following 

guidance should be followed with respect to such correspondence. 

An ARB will be held in each case involving an alleger RAC to discuss with senior 

management (namely the ARB Chairperson) the appropriate follow-up to the information 

provided by the alleger. NRC responses to RACs should normally be issued within 30 days. 

NRC Contacts for Obtaining Guidance and Providing Feedback Concerning AGM 

Implementation

The staff should direct any questions about this guidance and provide any feedback regarding 

the impact this policy has on the effectiveness of the Allegation Program to David Vito in the 

Office of Enforcement. Mr. Vito can be reached by telephone at (301) 415-2319 or by e-mail at 

DJV@nrc.gov. 

Enclosures: 

1. Sample Allegation Acknowledgement Letter 

2. Sample Allegation Status Letter 

3. Allegation Review Board Worksheet – Considering a Request for Information to the 

Licensee 

4. Sample Allegation Request for Information Letter to the Licensee 

5. Checklist for NRC Staff Review of Licensee Response to an Allegation Request for 

Information 

6. Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Other than Security Concerns) 

7. Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Security-Related Concerns) 

8. Sample Closure Memorandum to File (For Anonymous Allegations, NRC Staff-Suspected or 

Licensee-Identified Wrongdoing, or When an Alleger Specifically Requests No 

Correspondence from NRC) 
Multiple Addressees 2

 

Licensee-Identified Wrongdoing, or an alleger who specifically requests no correspondence 

from the NRC. 

Alleger Responses after Closure

A Response after Closure (RAC) is defined as a verbal or written communication from the 

alleger to the NRC staff indicating that the NRC=s closure of the allegation was, in some way, 

insufficient, inaccurate, or otherwise unacceptable to the alleger. A letter or phone call merely 

thanking the staff for its efforts should not be captured in AMS as a RAC, nor should a follow-up 

action the staff assigns itself, such as informing the alleger of a publicly available inspection 

report related to concerns raised by the alleger. 

Since each RAC indicates that the alleger believes that the NRC response is inadequate in 

some aspect, it is appropriate for the staff to engage NRC senior management in a discussion 

regarding the agency’s response to each alleger providing a RAC. Henceforth, the following 

guidance should be followed with respect to such correspondence. 

An ARB will be held in each case involving an alleger RAC to discuss with senior 

management (namely the ARB Chairperson) the appropriate follow-up to the information 

provided by the alleger. NRC responses to RACs should normally be issued within 30 days. 

NRC Contacts for Obtaining Guidance and Providing Feedback Concerning AGM 

Implementation

The staff should direct any questions about this guidance and provide any feedback regarding 

the impact this policy has on the effectiveness of the Allegation Program to David Vito in the 

Office of Enforcement. Mr. Vito can be reached by telephone at (301) 415-2319 or by e-mail at 

DJV@nrc.gov. 

Enclosures: 

1. Sample Allegation Acknowledgement Letter 

2. Sample Allegation Status Letter 

3. Allegation Review Board Worksheet – Considering a Request for Information to the 

Licensee 

4. Sample Allegation Request for Information Letter to the Licensee 

5. Checklist for NRC Staff Review of Licensee Response to an Allegation Request for 

Information 

6. Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Other than Security Concerns) 

7. Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Security-Related Concerns) 

8. Sample Closure Memorandum to File (For Anonymous Allegations, NRC Staff-Suspected or 

Licensee-Identified Wrongdoing, or When an Alleger Specifically Requests No 

Correspondence from NRC) 

Distribution and Concurrence: See next page 
Multiple Addressees 3

 

Electronic DISTRIBUTION: 

W. Borchardt, EDO M. Virgilio, DEDMRT B. Mallet, DEDR V. Ordaz, AO 

C. Carpenter, OE D. Vito, OE D. Solorio, OE J. McMillan, OIG 

D. Holody, RI C. Evans, RII K. O’Brien, RIII W. Jones, RIV 

OACs OE r/f Allegation Files: AGMs 

ADAMS ML083640272 

OFF RI: RA RII: RA RIII: RA 

NAME S. Collins L. Reyes J. Caldwell 

DATE 12/22/08 12/19/08 12/23/08 

OFF RIV: RA NRR: OD NRO: OD 

NAME E. Collins E. Leeds M. Johnson 

DATE 12/23/08 12/26/08 12/22/08 

OFF NSIR: OD NMSS: OD FSME: OD 

NAME R. Zimmerman M. Weber C. Miller 

DATE 12/24/08 12/22/08 12/29/08 

OFF OI: OD OE: OE: OD 

NAME G. Caputo D. Vito C. Carpenter 

DATE 12/22/08 11/19/08 11/19/08 

OFF OE: AAA 

NAME L. Jarriel 

DATE 12/23/08 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure 1 

1-1 

SAMPLE ALLEGATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER 

XXXX-20XX-A-XXXX 

(Alleger's Name and Address) 

SUBJECT: Concern(s) You Raised to the NRC Regarding (facility name)

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. (Alleger=s last name): 

USE FOR ALL CONCERNS EXCEPT THOSE RECEIVED VIA DOL/OSHA DISCRIMINATION 

COMPLAINT 

This letter refers to your (letter to, telephone conversation with, electronic mail message to, 

meeting with, interview with, etc.) (NRC staff member(s)) on/dated (date) in/during which you 

expressed concerns related to (general concern reference, e.g., maintenance issues, operations 

issues and alleged discrimination, etc.) at (facility name). 

USE IN PLACE OF THE ABOVE SENTENCE IF ALLEGATION WAS RECEIVED VIA A 

DOL/OSHA DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT 

We are in receipt of the discrimination complaint that you filed with the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL) against ___________ (licensee/certificate holder/applicant/contractor/vendor) at 

(site/facility). While your pursuit of a personal remedy in the matter of your (discrimination 

issue) is being evaluated by DOL, the NRC is tasked with regulating safety at facilities licensed 

by the NRC or using materials licensed by the NRC. In this role, it is our responsibility to 

evaluate any safety concerns that you may have raised in this matter. [INCLUDE IF DOL 

COMPLAINT DOES NOT ARTICULATE SPECIFIC SAFETY ISSUES] In order to determine 

whether or not you have specific safety concerns warranting NRC review, apart from the 

employment discrimination issues that are currently before DOL, it is requested that you contact 

(me/the NRC Region XX allegation coordinator) at the toll free telephone number noted below 

so that the details of your technical concerns may be discussed. If you choose, you may 

provide details regarding your technical concerns in writing to (me/Allegation Coordinator name) 

at (Allegation Office P. O. Box address). 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

Enclosure 1 to this letter documents your concern(s) as we understand (it/them). We have 

initiated actions to evaluate your concern(s) and will inform you of our findings. The NRC 

normally conducts an evaluation of a technical concern within six months, although complex 

issues may take longer. If the description of (your concern/any of your concerns) as noted in 

Enclosure 1 is not accurate, please contact me so that we can assure that your concern(s) (is/ 

are) appropriately described and adequately addressed prior to the completion of our review. 

CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

(NOTE: This statement should appear only on the first page and the official record copy.) 
Enclosure 1 

1-2 

[USE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE IF TECHNICAL CONCERNS RELATED TO A 

DISCRIMINATION MATTER ARE BEING REVIEWED BY NRC] Please understand that your 

technical concern(s) will be evaluated separately from your discrimination concern, and you will 

receive a separate response to it/each technical concern. [INCLUDE IF SECURITY-RELATED 

CONCERNS ARE PART OF THE ALLEGATION] Regarding your security-related concerns, 

please be aware that the information NRC will provide you regarding our assessment of this 

issue may be limited, as appropriate, to ensure that we are not unnecessarily releasing 

information that would reveal any potential security-related vulnerabilities. 

USE FOR GENERIC CONCERNS 

After review of the information you provided, we have determined that (the concern(s) you 

raised OR some of the concerns you raised) may impact a number of facilities. Because the 

resolution of this/these concern(s) will require a review of multiple facilities and may require a 

review of and/or changes to NRC policy, the time necessary to resolve this/these concern(s) 

may be extended. Due to the potential general applicability of your concern(s), we have 

transferred (it/them) to the (affected program office), the NRC office responsible for resolving 

issues in this area. Your contact at (affected program office) is: (provide name, title, address 

phone number and e-mail of affected program office allegation coordinator) 

USE WHEN A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FROM THE LICENSEE IS PLANNED OR 

IS AN OPTION 

As part of our response to your concern(s), we (may/intend to) request (licensee name) to 

perform an evaluation and provide a written response to the NRC. In that case [NOTE: Do not 

use qualifying phrase AIn that case@ if first sentence of paragraph indicates that NRC intends to 

issue an RFI to the licensee], your name and any other identifying information will be excluded 

from the information that is provided to (licensee name) in the request for information. We 

(have requested/will request) that (licensee name’s) evaluation be thorough, objective, and that 

the evaluator be independent of (licensee name) management responsible for oversight of the 

functional area related to your concern(s). We will evaluate (licensee name's) response, and 

consider it in developing our conclusions regarding your concern(s). We will inform you of our 

disposition once we have evaluated (licensee name’s) response and taken any additional 

actions, if necessary, to address your concern(s). [USE IF APPLICABLE] In your conversation 

with (NRC employee name) on (date), you indicated that you would not object to the NRC 

requesting information from the licensee with regard to your concern(s). 

USE IF RFI IS PLANNED OR IS AN OPTION AND ALLEGATION RECEIPT 

DOCUMENTATION DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER THE ALLEGER OBJECTS TO NRC 

ISSUING AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE 

Please contact (me/Allegation Coordinator name) at the toll free telephone number noted below 

if you have any objections to NRC issuing such a request for information. We will consider any 

objections that you may have before deciding to request a written response regarding your 

concern(s) from (licensee name), and make every attempt to contact you before a request for 

information is actually provided to (licensee name). If you do not contact us within [10] days of 

the date you receive this letter, it is our intent to proceed with issuance of the request for 

information to (licensee name). 
Enclosure 1 

1-3 

USE IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED FROM THE ALLEGER 

After evaluating the information you provided, we have determined that we will need additional 

information from you in order for the NRC to perform an effective review of your concern(s). For 

example, if you can provide...(provide examples of specific types of information that would 

support NRC review OR refer to a list of questions provided elsewhere, e.g., in Enclosure 1), 

such information would help us focus our review effort. [USE IF APPLICABLE] We have 

attempted to contact you by telephone without success. If you have any additional information 

to provide, please call (me/Allegation Coordinator name) at the toll free telephone number noted 

below, or contact (me/Allegation Coordinator name) in writing at (Allegation Office P. O. Box 

address), within [10] days of the date you receive this letter. If no additional information is 

received, (we will take no further action regarding this matter at this time OR we will proceed 

with our review based on available information). 

USE IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS PROMISED BUT NOT RECEIVED 

Based on your (conversation, telephone conversation, interview, etc.) with (NRC staff 

member(s)) on (date), it was understood that you would provide additional information to 

facilitate our review of your concern(s). To date, we have received no additional information 

from you. Please call (me/Allegation Coordinator name) at the toll free telephone number noted 

below, or contact (me/Allegation Coordinator name) in writing at (Allegation Office P. O. Box 

address), within [10] days of the date you receive this letter, to arrange for provision of the 

information. If no additional information is received, (we will take no further action regarding this 

matter at this time OR we will proceed with our review based on available information). 

USE FOR REFERRALS TO STATES/AGREEMENT STATES 

Because the NRC does not have jurisdiction over the activity(ies) in the State (Commonwealth) 

of ______ that are discussed in your concern(s), we are providing your concern(s) to the State 

(Commonwealth) of for review and resolution. [USE IF ALLEGER WILL PERMIT 

RELEASE OF THEIR IDENTITY TO THE STATE/AGREEMENT STATE] Based on your 

willingness to contact and be contacted by the state, as indicated in your (discussion/phone 

conversation) with (NRC staff member(s)) on (date), we have provided your name and address 

to the State (Commonwealth) so that the State (Commonwealth) may provide feedback to you 

directly regarding this matter. Please note that the State (Commonwealth) may not be able to 

protect your identity to the same extent as the NRC. Your contact at the State (Commonwealth) 

of _________ is (provide address/phone number/e-mail address of state agency contact). [USE 

IF ALLEGER WILL NOT PERMIT HIS OR HER IDENTITY TO BE PROVIDED TO THE 

STATE/AGREEMENT STATE] Because you have requested that your name and address not 

be provided to the State (Commonwealth), we will request the State (Commonwealth) to 

respond directly to the NRC regarding your concerns. We will inform you of the State=s 

(Commonwealth=s) response after we receive it. [USE IF UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN IF 

ALLEGER WILL PERMIT HIS OR HER IDENTITY TO BE PROVIDED TO THE 

STATE/AGREEMENT STATE] We have attempted but have been unsuccessful in contacting 

you by telephone to determine if it would be acceptable to provide your name and contact 

information to the State (Commonwealth). As such, we have not provided your name and 

address to the State (Commonwealth) of regarding this matter and we have requested the 

State (Commonwealth) to respond directly to the NRC regarding your concerns. We will inform 

you of the State=s (Commonwealth=s) response after we receive it. If after receiving this letter, 

you conclude that you would like to contact the State (Commonwealth) directly, you may contact 

the State (Commonwealth) at: (provide State (Commonwealth) contact information). 
Enclosure 1 

1-4 

USE IF A RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER AGENCY IS NEEDED TO RESPOND TO AN 

ALLEGER=S CONCERN 

We have determined that input is needed from (Agency Name) in order for the NRC to provide a 

complete response to your concern(s) related to (subject area). Therefore, we (are 

providing/have provided) these concerns to (Agency Name) for review and response. Your 

name and any other identifying information (will be/has been) excluded from the information that 

(is/was) provided to (Agency Name). We will review (Agency Name=s) response to (this/these) 

concerns as part of our evaluation, and provide you with the results of that evaluation. 

USE IF CONCERNS FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER AGENCY 

We have reviewed your concern(s) and determined that the associated activity(ies) (is/are) not 

under NRC regulatory jurisdiction. The agency with jurisdiction in this matter is (Agency Name) 

and we have provided your concern to that agency. For any further information on this matter, 

you may contact (Agency Contact) at (Agency Address). 

USE THIS FOR ALL LETTERS [NOTE: Do not include NRC standard identity protection 

wording indicated here in the acknowledgment letter if the alleger=s identity is being provided to 

a State or other agency/entity or if alleger is considered a Awidely known alleger@ with regard to 

all of his/her concerns that are being acknowledged.] 

In evaluating your technical* concern(s), the NRC intends to take all reasonable efforts not to 

disclose your identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. It is 

important to note, particularly if you have raised this issue internally, that individuals can and 

sometimes do surmise the identity of a person who provides information to the NRC because of 

the nature of the information or other factors beyond our control. In such cases, our policy is to 

neither confirm nor deny the individual's assumption. [INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE 

IF AN RFI IS TO BE ISSUED TO THE LICENSEE] As indicated above, if a written request for 

information is provided to (licensee name) regarding (your technical* concern(s) OR some or all 

of your technical* concerns), your name and other identifying information will be excluded from 

the information that is provided to (licensee name). [Do not use qualifying phrase Aif a request 

for information is provided to (licensee name)@ in the previous sentence if the letter has earlier 

indicated NRC’s intent to send an RFI vs. an option.] Enclosed with this letter is a brochure 

entitled "Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC," which includes an important discussion of the 

identity protection provided by the NRC regarding these matters as well as those circumstances 

that limit the NRC=s ability to protect an alleger=s identity. Please read that section of the 

brochure. [ALTERNATE LANGUAGE FOR REPEAT ALLEGERS - OAC DISCRETION] In an 

earlier letter to you dated (date), pertaining to a concern/concerns your raised regarding 

(subject), you were provided an NRC brochure entitled, "Reporting Safety Concerns to the 

NRC." The brochure includes information regarding the NRC allegation process, identity 

protection, and the processing of claims of discrimination for raising safety concerns. If you 

need another copy of the brochure, please contact me. [ALTERNATE WORDING TO ABOVE 

SENTENCES REFERENCING BROCHURE AVAILABILITY] However, you should be aware 

that your identity could be disclosed regarding this matter if the NRC determines that disclosure 

is necessary to ensure public health and safety, to respond to an order of a court or NRC 

adjudicatory authority or to inform Congress or State or Federal agencies in furtherance of NRC 

responsibilities under law or public trust, to support a hearing on an NRC enforcement matter, 

per requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or if you have taken actions that are 

inconsistent with and override the purpose of protecting an alleger's identity. 

[* - Note: If the alleger has also raised discrimination and/or other wrongdoing concerns, it may 
Enclosure 1 

1-5 

be clearer to refer to the concerns being forwarded by RFI in this sentence as “technical 

concerns” vs. “concerns.”] 

[USE IN PLACE OF ABOVE PARAGRAPH IF ALLEGER IS WIDELY KNOWN WITH RESPECT 

TO ALL CONCERNS OR IN ADDITION TO ABOVE PARAGRAPH IF ALLEGER IS WIDELY 

KNOWN WITH RESPECT TO ONE OR SOME CONCERNS] 

(We are aware that OR It is our understanding) that you have (notified the media/discussed at a 

press conference on (date), identified at a public meeting on (date)) that you provided your 

concern(s) related to (subject area(s)) to the NRC. As a result, the NRC will be unable to 

protect your identity with regard to this/these concerns. 

USE IF A CONCERN OR CONCERNS INVOLVE A WRONGDOING MATTER OTHER THAN 

ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION 

Also, your identity may be disclosed at the NRC's discretion in order to pursue an investigation 

of issue(s) involving potential wrongdoing, such as the (subject: e.g., records falsification, 

deliberate misconduct) issue you brought to our attention. 

 

USE IF A DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WAS PROVIDED BUT WAS DETERMINED NOT 

TO INVOLVE A PRIMA-FACIE SHOWING OF POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION 

We are not initiating an investigation into your assertion of discrimination at this time as 

explained in Enclosure 1 to this letter [NOTE: provide reasons that a prima-facie showing was 

not articulated in Enclosure 1 discussion of discrimination concern]. However, please 

understand that if the NRC initiates an investigation into your discrimination concern in the 

future based on additional clarifying information, your identity would be disclosed as part of that 

investigation since the evaluation of a matter of alleged discrimination without identifying you 

would be extremely difficult. 

USE IF THE ALLEGER HAS ESTABLISHED A PRIMA-FACIE SHOWING OF POTENTIAL 

DISCRIMINATION 

The NRC staff has reviewed your complaint of discrimination and has determined that an 

evaluation of your complaint is warranted. The NRC will consider enforcement action against 

NRC-regulated facilities that are found to have discriminated against individuals for raising 

safety concerns. However, please understand that the NRC cannot require that a personal 

remedy be provided to you (e.g., back pay, reinstatement). Means by which you can pursue a 

personal remedy are described later in this letter. 

If you wish, your discrimination concern may be investigated by the NRC Office of Investigations 

(OI). During an investigation, OI gathers testimonial and documentary evidence related to your 

discrimination concern. Since performing such an investigation without identifying you would be 

extremely difficult, please be aware that your name will be disclosed during the course of an 

NRC investigation into your discrimination concern. If, on the basis of the OI investigation 

results, the NRC determines that your discrimination concern is substantiated, the NRC will 

consider enforcement action against (licensee name), as appropriate. 

As an alternative to an investigation of your discrimination concern by OI, you may choose to 

participate in the NRC=s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program, which offers mediation in 

the handling of a complaint of discrimination. Mediation is a voluntary process where two 

parties, (you and your employer OR you and your former employer), use an unbiased, neutral 
Enclosure 1 

1-6 

individual, or mediator, in an attempt to resolve and settle your complaint. If such an agreement 

is reached, the NRC will close your discrimination complaint upon settlement and will not 

perform an investigation. If a settlement is not reached with (your employer OR your former 

employer), the NRC (OI) may initiate an investigation into your complaint of discrimination. As 

mentioned above, the NRC=s ADR program is voluntary, and any participant may end the 

mediation at any time. Additional information on this program is included in the attached 

brochure, ANRC=s Early ADR Program@ and more detailed information on the program can be 

found on our website at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr.html. 

The NRC has asked Cornell University=s Institute on Conflict Resolution (ICR) to aid you and 

(your employer OR your former employer) in resolving your discrimination concern through 

ADR. If you choose to participate in the NRC=s ADR program, you must contact ICR directly at 

1-877-733-9415 (toll free). You may contact ICR to discuss ADR in general, the NRC=s ADR 

program, and any other information you are interested in related to resolving your discrimination 

concern. If you and (your employer OR your former employer) choose to participate in the ADR 

program, ICR will assist you in the selection of a mediator who would meet with you and (your 

employer OR your former employer) in an attempt to settle your complaint. If you select a 

mediator through ICR, there will be no charge to you (or your employer OR your former 

employer) for the mediator=s services. If you participate in the ADR program, we ask that you 

complete the program evaluation form (supplied by ICR) at the completion of your participation 

so that we can evaluate the effectiveness of the program. We request that you make a decision 

regarding your interest in attempting mediation via the ADR program within 10 days of the date 

you receive this letter. 

The NRC notes that employers are encouraged to develop similar dispute resolution processes 

internal to their company for use in conjunction with their own employee concerns programs. If 

you utilize (your employer’s OR your former employer’s) dispute resolution program to settle a 

discrimination concern, your (employer OR former employer) may voluntarily report the 

settlement to the NRC. If NRC is notified of an internal settlement before an NRC OI 

investigation is initiated, the NRC will request a copy of such a settlement agreement (when 

completed, if negotiations are ongoing) from the (employer OR former employer) and review it 

to determine if it contains any restrictive agreements in violation of NRC employee protection 

regulations. If no such restrictive agreements exist, NRC will typically close the discrimination 

complaint and will not perform an OI investigation, similar to what is done subsequent to an 

agreement reached by way of NRC-sponsored ADR. 

Additionally, please note that, while participation in the NRC=s ADR program may result in 

negotiation of the issues which form the basis of your discrimination complaint with (your 

employer OR your former employer) under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 

1974, the timeliness requirement for filing a claim of discrimination with the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL) (180 days) is in no way altered by the NRC=s ADR Program. In this aspect, we 

note that DOL has the authority to order personal remedies in these matters. For this reason, 

the filing of a discrimination complaint with DOL should be considered at the same time you are 

considering use of the NRC ADR program. While there is a likelihood that DOL may choose to 

await the completion of an attempted ADR mediation given the prospect that a mutually 

agreeable settlement may be reached, timely filing of a discrimination complaint with DOL 

assures that DOL will review your discrimination claim in the event that ADR is unsuccessful. In 

order to protect your right to file a discrimination claim with DOL under 29 CFR Part 24, DOL's 

"Procedures for Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under Federal Employee Protection 

Statutes" (copy enclosed), you must file a written complaint with DOL within 180 days of the 

date of the alleged discriminatory action or the date you received any notice, in writing or 

otherwise, of an adverse personnel action, whichever occurred first. Any such complaint can 
Enclosure 1 

1-7 

be filed with DOL Regional Offices for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA). Your complaint must describe the safety issues(s) you raised, the resulting adverse 

personnel action taken against you, and the causal relationship between them. If you choose to 

file a complaint, it should be filed with: (INSERT ADDRESS OF APPROPRIATE OSHA 

REGIONAL OFFICE). 

USE WHEN ALLEGER HAS BEEN GRANTED CONFIDENTIALITY 

(With respect to your request for confidentiality OR With respect to the Confidentiality 

Agreement you signed), please be assured that the NRC will make every effort to maintain your 

confidentiality while resolving this matter. [INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE IF THE 

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT HAS YET TO BE EXECUTED] Please read the attached 

Confidentiality Agreement, sign and date it, and return it in the self-addressed, stamped 

envelope provided. It is important to note that individuals can and sometimes do surmise the 

identity of a person who provides information to the NRC because of the nature of the 

information or other factors beyond our control. In such cases, our policy is to neither confirm 

nor deny the individual's assumption. [INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES FOR 

ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION MATTERS] You should be aware that the NRC normally will not 

investigate a case of potential discrimination against an alleger for raising safety issues if the 

alleger is a confidential source. A matter of alleged discrimination cannot be investigated if an 

alleger's name is kept confidential. 

USE IF AN ALLEGER HAS ALSO PROVIDED ISSUES RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE 

OF NRC STAFF 

With respect to your concern(s) regarding the performance of the NRC staff, these matters have 

been referred to the NRC Office of Inspector General (OIG). If you have any questions or other 

comments on this matter/these matters, you should contact the OIG directly at 1-800-233-3497. 

[NOTE: If the issue has not been formally referred to the OIG after review by appropriate 

personnel within the affected regional or program office, the acknowledgment letter should 

simply acknowledge the alleger=s comments and provide OIG contact information as an option.] 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

If a request is filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to your area(s) of 

concern, the information provided will, to the extent consistent with that act, be purged of names 

and other potential identifiers. [FOR ALLEGERS WITHOUT CONFIDENTIALITY] Further, you 

should be aware you are not considered a confidential source unless confidentiality has been 

formally granted in writing. 

[INCLUDE IF NRC BROCHURE WAS NOT REFERENCED EARLIER IN THE 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER] Enclosed with this letter is a brochure entitled "Reporting 

Safety Concerns to the NRC," which contains information that you may find helpful in 

understanding our process for review of safety concerns. The brochure contains an important 

discussion of the identity protection provided by the NRC regarding these matters as well as 

those circumstances that limit the NRC=s ability to protect an alleger=s identity. [ADD IF THE 

ALLEGATION INCLUDES A DISCRIMINATION CONCERN] The brochure also includes a 

discussion of the right of an individual to file a complaint with the DOL if the individual believes 

she or he has been discriminated against for raising safety concerns and the individual desires 

a personal remedy. [ALTERNATE LANGUAGE FOR REPEAT ALLEGERS - OAC 

DISCRETION] In an earlier letter to you dated (date), pertaining to a concern/concerns you 

raised regarding (subject), you were provided an NRC brochure entitled, "Reporting Safety 
Enclosure 1 

1-8 

Concerns to the NRC." The brochure includes information regarding the NRC allegation 

process, identity protection, and the processing of claims of discrimination for raising safety 

concerns. If you need another copy of the brochure, please contact me. 

Thank you for notifying us of your concern(s). We will advise you when we have completed our 

review. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance, 

please call me toll-free at the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403 (if the alleger resides in the 

geographical area of the action office) OR the (regional/office) toll-free number 

1-800-XXX-XXXX (if the alleger does not reside in the geographical area of the action office) or 

you may provide information to me in writing at (Allegation Office P.O. Box address). [USE THE 

FOLLOWING AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE OAC] You may also communicate with me 

by electronic mail, if you so choose. However, when doing so, please call me in advance or 

provide your phone number in your e-mail message so that I can confirm that you are the 

source of the information. Also, please be advised that the NRC cannot protect the information 

during transmission on the Internet and there is a possibility that someone could read your 

response while it is in transit. My e-mail address is XXX@nrc.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosure(s): As stated 
Enclosure 1 

1-9 

FORMAT FOR ENCLOSURE 1 TO ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER 

STATEMENT OF CONCERNS 

ALLEGATION NO. XXX-200X-A-XXXX 

Concern 1: 

Describe the alleger's first concern. 

Concern 2: 

Describe the alleger's second concern. 

[Repeat for additional concerns] 

 Enclosure 1 
Enclosure 2 

2-1 

SAMPLE ALLEGATION STATUS LETTER 

 XXXX-200X-A-XXXX 

(Alleger's Name and Address) 

SUBJECT: Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding (facility name)

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. (alleger=s last name): 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

This letter pertains to the concern(s) you raised to the NRC in your (letter of, electronic mail 

message dated, conversation with (NRC staff member) on, interview with (NRC staff member) 

on, meeting with the resident inspector on, etc.) (date), regarding (general concern reference, 

e.g., maintenance issues, operations issues and alleged discrimination, etc.) at (facility name). 

(Use the following sentences, as appropriate, if the alleger provided information in addition to 

that provided in the initial correspondence or contact.) In addition to the information you 

provided on (initial allegation receipt date), you also (called (NRC staff member(s)), wrote to the 

NRC, met with (NRC staff member(s))) on (date). In/During this/these subsequent (letter(s), 

conversation(s), meeting(s)), you provided additional information regarding (general additional 

concern reference). 

USE IF ALL CONCERNS ARE STILL OPEN 

Your concern(s) ((is/are) being reviewed by NRC) OR ((Licensee name) was requested to 

provide a written response to your concern(s) for NRC evaluation). We are reviewing (licensee 

name’s) response to determine if any additional action by NRC is appropriate. When we have 

completed our review, we will notify you of our findings, actions, and the final evaluation of your 

concern(s). 

USE IF SOME CONCERNS ARE CLOSED WHILE OTHERS ARE STILL OPEN 

We have completed our review of (some, XX number) of your concerns, as indicated on 

Enclosure (X) to this letter. (On a separate enclosure (see sample Enclosure), restate each 

concern and describe the NRC evaluation and conclusions for every issue for which NRC efforts 

have been completed since the last correspondence with the alleger.) (Use the following 

sentence if concern results are documented in an inspection report.) We note that detailed 

results of NRC inspection efforts regarding this/these concern(s) are further documented in 

NRC Inspection Report (XX-XXX/200X-XXX) which has been enclosed for your information. 

The NRC staff (is continuing with its review of your other concern(s) OR has requested a written 

a response from (licensee) regarding your other concern(s) OR is reviewing (licensee name’s) 

response to your concern(s), etc.). When we have completed our review, we will notify you of 

our findings, actions, and the final evaluation of your concern(s). 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (Note: Use only on the first page) 
Enclosure 2 

2-2 

FOR ALLEGATION CONCERNS INVOLVING SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

[If any of the concerns being closed in the status letter are security-related, refer to Enclosure 7, 

“Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Security-Related Concerns),” for appropriate cover letter 

wording depending on the security concern category.] 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

Thank you for notifying us of your concerns. We will advise you when we have completed our 

review. If I can be of further assistance, please call me toll-free at the NRC Safety Hotline at 

1-800-XXX-XXXX (if the alleger resides in the geographical area of the action office) OR the 

(regional/office) toll-free number 1-800-XXX-XXXX (if the alleger does not reside in the 

geographical area of the action office). 

Sincerely, 

Enclosure(s): As stated 
Enclosure 2 

2-3 

[IF CONCERNS WERE CLOSED SINCE THE LAST LETTER TO THE ALLEGER, PROVIDE 

THE CLOSURE INFORMATION FOR THOSE CONCERNS IN AN ENCLOSURE TO THE 

STATUS LETTER AS DESCRIBED BELOW] 

FORMAT FOR STATUS LETTER ENCLOSURE DESCRIBING NRC EVALUATION OF 

ALLEGATION CONCERNS 

RESPONSE TO CONCERNS 

ALLEGATION NO. XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX 

Concern 1: 

Restate the alleger's concern as provided in the acknowledgment letter, as modified by the 

alleger, or as clarified by the alleger (if the alleger provided clarifying information to better 

describe his or her concern during the course of NRC’s review). 

Response to Concern 1: 

[Provide a direct answer to each of the closed concerns, stating what was evaluated, how it was 

evaluated, and providing NRC’s conclusions regarding the validity of the concern. It is 

preferable that an overall conclusion be provided indicating that the concern was substantiated, 

unsubstantiated, or partially substantiated, as long as that overall conclusion is well supported 

by the accompanying discussion regarding the evaluation of the concern. However, if providing 

such an overall conclusion will be confusing to the alleger (e.g., if aspects of the concern were 

substantiated, but the alleged impropriety or inadequacy was not found to be valid), alternate 

wording may be used, such as... “while NRC was able to substantiate that certain 

(facts/statements/conditions regarding _____) were true, NRC was unable to confirm or validate 

an impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activity.” (If appropriate add: We 

have documented our findings in (inspection report number, or other document citation) dated 

____________. A copy of the relevant section(s) of the report/document is/are enclosed.] 

FOR A CLOSED CONCERN THAT INVOLVED AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE 

[If an RFI was sent to the licensee, the documentation of allegation concern closure should 

reference the feedback provided by the licensee but should also distinctly describe NRC’s 

evaluation and conclusions regarding the concern based on all pertinent information, including 

the licensee’s RFI response. Specifically, in addition to restating the alleger’s concern, the 

concern response should separately describe (1) the licensee’s evaluation and response and 

(2) NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response and overall conclusions regarding the validity of 

the concern. The description of NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response should articulate 

any NRC staff independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted to validate 

aspects of the licensee’s response.] 

FOR CLOSED ALLEGATION CONCERNS INVOLVING SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

[If any of the concerns being closed in the status letter are security-related, refer to Enclosure 7, 

“Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Security-Related Concerns),” for appropriate response 

wording depending on the security concern category.] 

[Repeat for Additional Concerns]
Enclosure 3 

3-1 

ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD WORKSHEET 

Considering a Request for Information to the Licensee 

The purpose of this worksheet is to assist the staff in determining whether a Request for 

Information (RFI) should be issued to a licensee, and support the development of the proposed 

basis for Allegation Review Board (ARB) assignment of this action. “Yes” answers to the four 

Yes-No questions below indicate that an RFI would normally be issued, while “No” answers 

indicate that an NRC inspection/technical review would normally be preferable. However, 

circumstances may exist, as indicated below, that support the use of an RFI in conjunction with 

an NRC inspection/technical review. 

Allegation Number: Affected Concern(s): 

 

A: Overriding Safety Issue (OSI) 

Yes No Does the allegation concern represent an OSI? 

Comments: 

B: RFI Inhibiting Conditions – If the concern does not involve an OSI, consider the validity of 

the following statements related to conditions that would normally inhibit issuing an RFI: 

True False The alleger objects to the NRC issuing an RFI and information 

cannot be released in sufficient detail to the licensee without 

compromising the alleger’s identity. 

True False Licensee could compromise an NRC investigation or inspection 

because of knowledge gained from the RFI. 

True False Concern is against senior licensee management, such that an 

independent and effective evaluation is unlikely through the use of 

an RFI. 

True False A Federal or State agency providing the information does not 

approve of the RFI. 

Yes No Are all of the above statements “False,” indicating that conditions do not 

exist that would normally inhibit the issuance of an RFI? 

Comments: 

 

Note: An RFI will normally be issued to the licensee (verbally first, then in writing), if an OSI exists, 

regardless of any other factor noted on this worksheet. In this instance, the consideration of a 

waiting period for alleger feedback regarding a proposed RFI is waived. Other factors discussed 

below should be considered to determine if it is preferable to conduct an NRC inspection/review in 

conjunction with the RFI. 

Note: If it is ultimately determined that an RFI will be issued, but the above conditions may limit 

the effectiveness of the RFI, NRC review/inspection activity should be considered by the ARB to 

supplement information to be obtained from the RFI response. 

Note: The term “licensee” in the worksheet refers to any NRC licensee, certificate holder, license or 

certificate applicant, or vendor that may be the subject of an allegation concern. 
Enclosure 3 

3-2 

C: Allegation/Inspection History Consideration – Consider the validity of the following 

statements related to history/trends in allegations, NRC inspections and investigations that 

may indicate an NRC inspection or technical review is preferable to an RFI or should be 

considered in conjunction with an RFI. As needed, the program offices should request 

assistance from the regional offices in obtaining this information. 

True False The action office is aware of problems with the site’s responses to 

RFIs in the last 2 years that could impact the quality of the licensee’s 

response to an RFI related to this concern. 

True False The action office is aware of allegation trends at the site in the past 2 

years, whether substantiated or not, that indicate the NRC should 

independently evaluate the concern(s) (e.g., multiple or repeated 

allegations of a similar nature). 

True False The Mid-Cycle or EOC Review (reactor licensees) or other 

assessment results indicate problems with the site’s ability to identify 

and resolve problems, which could impact the quality of the 

licensee’s response to an RFI related to this concern. 

Yes No Are all of the above statements “False,” indicating there are no known 

circumstances that suggest the licensee might not effectively evaluate, 

document, and resolve the allegation concern? 

Comments: 

D: Inspection/Technical Review Consideration: Consider the validity of the following 

statements that might indicate an NRC inspection or technical review of the concern(s) is 

preferable to an RFI or should be considered in conjunction with an RFI. 

True False The alleger objects to the NRC issuing an RFI to the licensee. 

True False The alleger has taken the concern to the licensee with unsatisfactory 

results. 

True False NRC evaluation can be as, or more, timely and efficient than 

licensee’s. 

True False Allegation/concern can be evaluated during an ongoing or planned 

NRC inspection. 

True False NRC is already evaluating other aspects of the same or similar 

issues and evaluation of the allegation concern can be included. 

True False Significant public/Commission interest warrants independent 

assessment of concern(s). 

True False Other reasons to consider conducting an inspection/technical review. 

Describe: 

Yes No Are there statements above marked “False” that collectively suggest an 

NRC inspection/technical review is not preferable? 

 

Comments: 

 

E: Proposal for ARB Assigned Action and Basis

RFI Inspection/Technical Review Both 

Basis: 
Enclosure 4 

4-1 

SAMPLE ALLEGATION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) LETTER TO THE LICENSEE 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this header on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information) 

Licensee management representative XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX 

Licensee address 

Dear _________: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently received information concerning activities at 

(site/facility). We request that (licensee name) evaluate the information described in the 

Enclosure to this letter and submit the results of that evaluation to (regional or program office). 

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, we ask that you inform (regional or program office 

contact) in writing the details of your evaluation and your findings related to the validity of the 

information provided. If (licensee name) determines a concern to be substantiated, please 

discuss (licensee name’s) consideration of appropriate root causes and generic implications of 

the substantiated concern, and the appropriateness of corrective actions taken or planned. 

Additionally, if your evaluation identifies any compliance issue with regard to NRC regulatory 

requirements or NRC commitments, please inform us regarding the requirement or commitment 

that was violated, the corrective actions taken or planned, and the corrective action 

documentation that addressed the issue. We ask that you reference our tracking number 

(XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX) in your written response and also that you make any records of your 

evaluation available for possible NRC inspection. 

The NRC will review your response to determine whether: (a) the individual conducting the 

investigation was independent of the organization with responsibility for the related functional 

area; (b) the evaluator was proficient in the related functional area; and (c) the evaluation was of 

sufficient depth and scope. Your response should describe how each of these attributes was 

satisfied. If individuals were interviewed as part of your review, your response should include 

the basis for determining that the number and cross section of individuals interviewed was 

appropriate to obtain the information necessary to fully evaluate the concern(s), and the 

interview questions used. If your evaluation included a sample review of related documentation 

and/or potentially affected structures, systems, and components, your response should include 

the basis for determining that the selected sample size was appropriately representative and 

adequate to obtain the information necessary to fully evaluate the concern(s). The NRC will 

consider these factors in reviewing the adequacy of your evaluation of this/these issue(s). 

We request that your response only be sent to (regional or program office contact) at the 

following address: [Name and address of regional or program office contact]. No other copies 

should be sent to the NRC, i.e., your response should not be docketed or otherwise submitted 

to the NRC Document Control Desk. We also request that your response contain no personal 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this footer on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information) 
Enclosure 4 

4-2 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this header on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information) 

Addressee XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX 

privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information. If personal privacy or proprietary information is 

necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide a bracketed copy of your 

response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your 

response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must

specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in 

detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will 

create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 

CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial 

information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please 

provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21. 

[FOR RFI THAT CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED NONSAFEGUARDS INFORMATION (SUNSI), INCLUDE THIS PARAGRAPH] The information in 

the Enclosure to this letter contains SUNSI Security-Related Information in accordance with 10 

CFR2.390(d)(1) and its disclosure to unauthorized individuals could present a security 

vulnerability. Please mark the top of each page of your response with “Security-Related 

Information – Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390,” and follow the instructions for withholding 

information contained in 10 CFR 2.390 (b)(1). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 (b)(1)(ii), NRC 

is waiving the requirement for your response to be accompanied by an affidavit. 

 

This letter and its enclosure should be controlled and distribution limited to personnel with a 

"need to know." The response requested by this letter and the accompanying enclosure are not 

subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511. 

Lastly, we ask that you contact the NRC as your review effort begins, to assure a common 

understanding of the issues discussed in the Enclosure, and the NRC’s expectations for followup and response. Please contact (regional or program office contact) at (telephone #) with this 

information and with any additional questions you may have at this time concerning this request. 

 Sincerely, 

 [NRC manager as designated by region/program 

office management] 

Enclosure: As stated 

bcc w/encl: Allegation File No. XXX-YYYY-A-XXXX 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this footer on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information) 
Enclosure 4 

4-3 

SAMPLE ENCLOSURE TO RFI LETTER TO THE LICENSEE REGARDING AN ALLEGATION 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this header on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information) 

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 

(Use this header on each page of the RFI enclosure if RFI DOES NOT contain SUNSI SecurityRelated Information) 

XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX 

Issue 1: 

The NRC has received information that ...(for each concern, provide as much information as 

possible to enable the licensee to perform an effective review. The information is to be provided 

in a manner that does not include the identity of the alleger or information that could permit the 

licensee to identify the alleger, and that does not compromise an ongoing NRC investigation or 

inspection.) 

[Note: If the allegation is received in writing, the alleger’s incoming correspondence normally 

should not be forwarded with the RFI. Rather, the alleger’s concerns are summarized in this 

enclosure, including being rewritten so as not to use the alleger’s exact wording. If the ARB 

determines that the safety implications of an allegation concern warrant providing a copy of the 

original information supplied by the alleger with the RFI rather than an NRC summary, every 

effort should be made to notify the alleger of the NRC’s proposed action and obtain agreement 

from the alleger, in writing, if possible. If the alleger objects to the inclusion of his/her original 

correspondence in the RFI, NRC should acknowledge the alleger’s feedback and, if possible, 

come to an agreement with the alleger as to the content of the information that will be 

transmitted. If the alleger objects to the inclusion of his/her original correspondence in the RFI 

and NRC does not agree with the alleger’s objection because the matter represents an 

overriding safety issue, the NRC may include the alleger’s incoming correspondence in the RFI 

over the alleger’s objection. The results of any such interface with the alleger should be 

documented in the allegation file.] 

In addition to the response information requested in the cover letter, we ask that your response 

address or include the following: 

Examples of additional detail that may be requested: 

...answers to the following questions related to this issue 

...a description of the process that monitors this issue 

...a description of or a copy of the procedure that governs this activity 

...a diagram that shows how the equipment interfaces with other systems 

[Note: If the alleger has previously raised the issue internally to the licensee and was not 

satisfied with the licensee’s feedback, and does not object to NRC providing a written RFI to the 

licensee regarding the concern, the letter to the licensee should, in addition to describing the 

concern, describe the asserted inadequacy in the licensee’s internal response efforts.] 

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 

(Use this footer on each page of the RFI enclosure if RFI DOES NOT contain SUNSI SecurityRelated Information) 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this footer on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information)
Enclosure 5 

5-1 

CHECKLIST FOR NRC STAFF REVIEW 

of 

Licensee Response to an Allegation Request For Information 

The purpose of this checklist is to assist the staff in evaluating the adequacy of a licensee’s 

response to an allegation Request for Information (RFI), independently verifying aspects of the 

information provided by the licensee, and to support the development of the proposed basis for 

additional staff actions if it is determined that the licensee’s response is inadequate, inaccurate, 

or otherwise unacceptable. 

Allegation Number: Affected Concern(s): 

 

A: Determining the Adequacy of the Licensee=s Response to an Allegation RFI 

Evaluator Independence 

Yes No Does the relationship between the individual(s) chosen by the licensee to 

evaluate the concern(s) and the concern(s) being evaluated allow for 

appropriate objectivity (e.g., third party or internal evaluator, but not in the 

same management chain as those involved in concern(s))? 

Comments: 

Evaluator Competence

Yes No Based on the information provided, is the evaluator competent in related 

functional area? Comments: 

Depth and Scope of Evaluation

Yes No Are all RFI-related concerns addressed? 

Yes No Is the evaluation rigor commensurate with the level of concern detail 

provided? For example, if appropriate, did evaluation include extent of 

condition review, root/apparent cause assessment, or generic considerations? 

Yes No Are the conclusions provided by the licensee supported by the evaluation? 

Yes No Are all affected personnel/groups/departments considered in the evaluation? 

For example, if interviews were conducted, did the licensee describe the basis 

for the number and cross section of individuals interviewed and is basis 

adequate? Were the interview questions appropriate? 

Yes No N/A If the NRC asked additional specific questions, are they answered 

satisfactorily? 

Yes No N/A If the names of specific individuals were referenced in the RFI, did the 

licensee contact those individuals and/or appropriately consider their 

involvement in the allegation concern? 

Note: The term “licensee” in the worksheet refers to any NRC licensee, certificate holder, license or 

certificate applicant, or vendor that may be the subject of an allegation concern. 

Note: Use best judgment for smaller organizations when clear management chain 

independence may not be possible. 

Note: “Yes” answers normally indicate that the licensee’s response to an RFI is adequate, while “No” 

answers indicate additional action may be necessary. 
Enclosure 5 

5-2 

 

Yes No N/A If specific documentation was referenced in the RFI, did the licensee 

evaluate that documentation and/or appropriately consider it in the 

evaluation of the allegation concern? 

Yes No N/A If the licensee reviewed a sample of related documentation and/or 

potentially affected structures, systems, and components, did the 

licensee describe the sample and provide the basis for determining 

that the sample size was appropriately representative? 

Comments: 

Effectiveness of Corrective Actions

Yes No N/A If applicable, were appropriate immediate corrective actions taken by 

the licensee? 

Yes No N/A If applicable, were operability and reportability determinations 

appropriate? 

Yes No N/A If applicable, were appropriate corrective actions proposed? 

Yes No N/A If applicable, were issues entered into the corrective action program? 

Comments: 

NRC Violations (substantiated concerns only) 

Yes No N/A If the substantiated concern represents a violation, did the licensee 

appropriately acknowledge and articulate the violation in response to 

the RFI? Comments: 

B: NRC Independent Review Effort 

NRC staff evaluating licensee RFI response should attempt to independently validate aspects of 

the information provided by the licensee. Indicate any of the following that apply: 

 Additional questions posed to the licensee. 

 Performed or coordinated an independent inspection or technical review activity to verify a 

condition indicated in the response. 

 Reviewed the results of recently conducted NRC inspections in the functional area related 

to the allegation concerns. 

 Verified the existence and applicability of technical references noted in the response. 

 Verified the existence and applicability of procedures referenced in the response. 

Ensured revision number referenced is appropriate. 

 Verified the existence and content of corrective action program documentation referenced 

in the response. 

 Checked calculations noted in the response. 

 Other. Describe: 

Comments: 

C: CONCLUSION 

 Adequate RFI Response Inadequate RFI Response 

Basis: 

Note: Notify the responsible Branch Chief and the OAC of the results of this review. 
Enclosure 6 

6-1 

SAMPLE CLOSURE LETTER TO ALLEGER 

(FOR OTHER THAN SECURITY CONCERNS) 

Alleger's Name and Address XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX 

SUBJECT: Concern(s) You Raised to the NRC Regarding (Site/Facility) 

Dear (Alleger's Name): 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

The NRC has completed its follow up in response to the concern(s) you brought to our attention 

on (date) regarding (site/facility). You were concerned about (brief summary of concerns) OR 

Your concerns were related to (brief reference to functional area(s), e.g., operations, operator 

qualification, health physics program implementation, maintenance backlog, plant configuration 

control, etc.). Enclosure 1 to this letter restates your concern(s) and describes the NRC’s 

review and conclusions with regard to (that/each) concern. 

SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING FOR THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IF THE ALLEGER FAILED 

TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AS NEEDED OR REQUESTED 

This letter refers to our letter to you dated ____________, in which we requested that you 

contact us to provide additional information regarding your concern(s) related to (general 

description of concern(s)) at (site/facility). You discussed (this/these) concern(s) (in your letter 

dated (date)) (during your conversation with _____ on (date)). (If additional telephone or 

personal contacts occurred, refer to them here.) Since you have not contacted us to provide the 

additional information we requested, the NRC plans no further action regarding this/these 

matter(s). (Add the following sentence, if appropriate.) (We have, however, alerted our 

inspectors to your general concerns so that they can pay particular attention to those areas 

during their routine inspections.) 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We believe that our actions in this matter have 

been responsive. ((If needed, either or both of the following sentences may be used. Also 

consider using if allegation involves a Response After Closure or a revisited case.) Closure of 

an allegation does not prevent us from revisiting a concern, especially if we obtain new 

information. Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC's safety 

mission. We take our safety responsibility to the public seriously and will continue to do so 

within the bounds of our lawful authority. (USE NEXT SENTENCE IN CASES WHERE WE 

HAVE NOT SUPPORTED THE ALLEGER'S CONCERNS - otherwise, remove it.) Unless the 

NRC receives additional information that suggests that our conclusions should be altered, we 

plan no further action on this matter. Should you have any additional questions, or if I can be of 

further assistance in this matter, please call me on the NRC Safety Hotline at xxxxxxx) OR the 

(regional/office) toll-free number 1-800-XXX-XXXX (if the alleger does not reside in the 

geographical area of the action office). 

 Sincerely, 

Enclosure(s): As stated 

CERTIFIED MAIL or Other Appropriate Carrier 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (Note: This statement should appear on the first page and 

the official record copy.) 
Enclosure 6 

6-2 

FORMAT FOR ENCLOSURE DESCRIBING NRC EVALUATION OF ALLEGER’S CONCERNS 

RESPONSE TO CONCERNS 

ALLEGATION NO. XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX 

Concern 1: 

Restate the alleger's concern as provided in the acknowledgment letter, as modified by the 

alleger, or as clarified by the alleger (if the alleger provided clarifying information to better 

describe his or her concern during the course of NRC’s review). 

Response to Concern 1: 

(Provide a direct answer to each of the alleger's concerns, stating what was evaluated, how it 

was evaluated, and providing NRC’s conclusions regarding the validity of the concern. It is 

preferable that an overall conclusion be provided indicating that the concern was substantiated, 

unsubstantiated, or partially substantiated, as long as that overall conclusion is well supported 

by the accompanying discussion regarding the evaluation of the concern. However, if providing 

such an overall conclusion will be confusing to the alleger (e.g., if aspects of the concern were 

substantiated, but the alleged impropriety or inadequacy was not found to be valid), alternate 

wording may be used, such as... “while NRC was able to substantiate that certain 

(facts/statements/conditions regarding _____) were true, NRC was unable to confirm or validate 

an impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activity.” (If appropriate add: We 

have documented our findings in (inspection report number, or other document citation) dated 

____________. A copy of the relevant section(s) of the report/document is/are enclosed.) 

FOR ANY CONCERN THAT INVOLVED AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE 

[If an RFI was sent to the licensee, the documentation of allegation concern closure should 

reference the feedback provided by the licensee but should also distinctly describe NRC’s 

evaluation and conclusions regarding the concern based on all pertinent information, including 

the licensee’s RFI response. Specifically, in addition to restating the alleger’s concern, the 

concern response should separately describe (1) the licensee’s evaluation and response and 

(2) NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response and overall conclusions regarding the validity of 

the concern. The description of NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response should articulate 

NRC staff independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted to validate 

aspects of the licensee’s response.] 

[Repeat for Additional Concerns] 

Suggested Wording for Closure Letter Responses to Certain Types of Concerns

If NRC Action Is Complete and the Concern Involved 10 CFR 2.390 Information, in Whole or in 

Part, Include the Following in the Concern Response: 

“Your concern dealt with (proprietary information, personal privacy matters about another 

individual, medical records, etc.) and the details are exempt from disclosure to you or the public 

in general, so we are unable to provide you with specific details related to our evaluation.” (Add 

a brief statement as to whether or not the concern was substantiated, unsubstantiated, or 

partially substantiated without providing specific details of the findings.) (If the concern involved 

security-related information, refer to Enclosure 7, “Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For 

Security-Related Concerns),” for appropriate response wording depending on the security 

concern).] 
Enclosure 6 

6-3 

If OI Returns a Potential Wrongdoing Issue to the Staff for Lack of Resources or Based on 

Priority, Including Employee Discrimination, Include the Following in the Concern Response: 

“On the basis of our review of your concern of (describe wrongdoing concern) and other cases 

needing investigation by the NRC, the NRC will not be expending further investigatory efforts on 

the potential wrongdoing aspects of your concern. This is not a finding that your wrongdoing 

concern does not have merit. Rather it is recognition that the NRC must focus its limited 

investigatory resources on cases of higher priority. (Explain what was done with the technical 

aspect of the wrongdoing concern (e.g., "The staff reviewed the impact on safety of the alleged 

falsified record and determined..., etc.). (For discrimination cases only). Accordingly, absent a 

finding of discrimination by DOL (if applicable), or any additional substantial information and/or 

evidence from you that would support your discrimination concern(s), the staff plans no further 

follow up on the concern you have provided to the NRC.” 

Discussion of Enforcement/Assessment Process Outcomes 

While it is appropriate to indicate in response to an alleger’s concern whether the NRC’s 

evaluation of the concern identified a violation of NRC requirements or an ROP finding, it is not 

imperative that the alleger be informed of the specific enforcement action taken or finding 

categorization via the ROP. In other words, it is sufficient, in most instances, to indicate that a 

violation or finding was identified and that the categorization of the violation or finding and the 

licensee’s follow up activities will be determined by the Enforcement Process or the Reactor 

Oversight Process. However, if the violation or finding has already been determined or 

categorized, and responsible staff believe that providing specific information about the NRC 

violation or finding will improve the concern response, this information may be discussed in the 

closure letter. With regard to a substantiated discrimination concern in particular, it is logical 

that the alleger would have an interest in any specific NRC regulatory action taken against the 

licensee. The following examples of closure letter wording apply to different types of violations 

and findings: 

1. Concern Resulting in a Minor Violation Not Being Documented in an Inspection Report 

The safety significance of the violation of [briefly discuss identified violation] was evaluated 

by the NRC and found to be minor. The licensee has been informed of this matter and has 

(entered this matter into the corrective action program, initiated/taken corrective actions, 

etc.). Minor violations represent items of low safety significance and are not subject to 

formal enforcement action or documentation by the NRC. Therefore, this minor violation will 

not be documented in an inspection report, and no further regulatory action is planned. 

2. Concern Resulting in the Issuance of a Non-Cited Violation 

During the NRC (inspection/investigation) of this matter, a violation of NRC requirements 

was identified. Because the issue had limited safety significance, the NRC has categorized 

the issue as a Non-Cited Violation (NCV). (Licensee name) is required to correct the NCV. 

3. Concern Resulting in the Issuance of a Notice of Violation (and/or a Civil Penalty) 

During the NRC (inspection/investigation) of this matter, a violation of NRC requirements 

was identified. The NRC issued a Notice of Violation (and Proposed Imposition of Civil 

Penalty in the amount of ($_________)) to the licensee (attached). (Licensee name) is 

required to inform us of the corrective actions it has taken or plans to take regarding the 

identified violation. Our inspectors will continue to monitor (licensee name’s) activities to 

ensure proper resolution of this matter. 
Enclosure 6 

6-4 

4. Concern Resulting in the Identification of an Apparent Violation that the NRC Is 

Considering for Escalated Enforcement Action 

During the NRC (inspection/investigation), an apparent violation of NRC requirements was 

identified. The NRC has notified (licensee name) of this issue (attached) and has given 

(licensee name) the opportunity to respond to the apparent violation in writing or to 

participate in a pre-decisional enforcement conference before NRC makes its enforcement 

decision. If NRC subsequently concludes that significant enforcement action is warranted, 

the action will be made publicly available at a later time. We will continue our oversight of 

this matter to ensure proper resolution. 

Sample Closure Letter Wording Related to an Offsite Emergency Preparedness Concern that 

has been Referred to FEMA 

As indicated in our previous correspondence to you dated (date), we contacted the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assist in reviewing the issue. In a 

letter dated (date of FEMA referral response), FEMA provided the results of their review 

and evaluation of the issue. Based on the information you provided to us and additional 

information provided by FEMA, the NRC staff (has substantiated/was unable to 

substantiate) your concern. (If concern(s) are substantiated, add the following) 

Specifically, the staff substantiated (give description of substantiation). 

The NRC will pursue the substantiated concern(s) with the licensee. Any actions 

deemed necessary will be conducted outside the allegation process. 

 
Enclosure 7 

7-1 

SAMPLE CLOSURE LETTER TO ALLEGER (FOR SECURITY-RELATED CONCERNS) 

Alleger's Name XXXX-200X-A-XXXX 

and Address 

Subject: Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding (Facility Name) 

Dear (Alleger's Name): 

[FOR ALL LETTERS] The NRC has completed its follow-up in response to the concern(s) you 

brought to our attention on (date) regarding security issues at (facility name). [FOR 

CATEGORY III CONCERNS] Enclosure 1 to this letter restates your concern(s) and describes 

the NRC’s review and conclusions regarding (that concern/each concern) [Add the following to 

this sentence FOR CATEGORY III CONCERNS WHICH RESULT IN A MINOR FINDING OR 

VIOLATION REQUIRING COMPENSATORY ACTIONS, WHEN THE ALLEGER IS A 

SECURITY FORCE MEMBER AT THE FACILITY] and makes note of a discussion that [was 

OR is to be] held with you to discuss compensatory actions taken in relation to your concern(s). 

[FOR CATEGORY I AND II CONCERNS] While we are fully committed to our goal of ensuring 

openness in our regulatory process, we must balance that goal with ensuring the continued 

safety and secure operation of nuclear facilities in our country. Normally, when we have 

completed our review of an allegation, we provide the concerned individual with information as 

to whether their concern was substantiated and details on the actions taken by the NRC to 

evaluate the concern. However, due to the nature of the security-related issue(s) associated 

with your concern(s) and to ensure that we are not unnecessarily releasing information that 

would reveal any potential security-related vulnerabilities, [FOR CATEGORY I CONCERNS] we 

are unable to provide you with specific details regarding the NRC’s evaluation of your concerns. 

[FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS] we can provide only limited information regarding the NRC’s 

evaluation of your concern(s). [FOR CATEGORY I CONCERNS] A restatement of your 

concerns is provided in Enclosure 1. [FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS] Enclosure 1 to this 

letter restates your concern(s) and provides indication as to whether our evaluation resulted in a 

finding [Add the following to this sentence FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS WHICH RESULT 

IN A MINOR FINDING OR VIOLATION REQUIRING COMPENSATORY ACTIONS, WHEN 

THE ALLEGER IS A SECURITY FORCE MEMBER AT THE FACILITY] and makes note of a 

discussion that [was OR is to be] held with you to discuss the NRC’s actions and conclusions 

regarding your concern(s). 

[FOR ALL LETTERS] Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We believe that our actions 

in this matter have been responsive. Should you have any additional questions, or if I can be of 

further assistance in this matter, please call me on the NRC Safety Hotline at (###). 

 Sincerely, 

Enclosure(s): As stated 

CERTIFIED MAIL (or Other Appropriate Carrier) 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (NOTE: This statement should appear on the first page and 

the official record copy.) 
Enclosure 7 

7-2 

FORMAT FOR ENCLOSURE TO CLOSURE LETTER TO ALLEGER FOR SECURITYRELATED CONCERNS 

RESPONSE TO CONCERNS 

ALLEGATION NO. XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX 

Concern 1: 

Restate the alleger's concern as provided in the acknowledgment letter, as modified by the 

alleger, or as clarified by the alleger (if the alleger provided clarifying information to better 

describe his or her concern during the course of NRC’s review). 

Response to Concern 1: 

FOR CATEGORY III CONCERNS 

[Provide a direct answer to the alleger's concern, stating what was evaluated, how it was 

evaluated, and providing NRC’s conclusions regarding the validity of the concern. For Category 

III concerns involving a minor finding or violation and requiring compensatory actions, it may be 

indicated that corrective/compensatory actions were taken, but do not provide the specifics of 

the corrective/compensatory actions. It is preferable that an overall conclusion be provided 

indicating that the concern was substantiated, unsubstantiated, or partially substantiated, as 

long as that overall conclusion is well supported by the accompanying discussion regarding the 

evaluation of the concern. However, if providing such an overall conclusion will be confusing to 

the alleger (e.g., if aspects of the concern were substantiated, but the alleged impropriety or 

inadequacy was not found to be valid), alternate wording may be used, such as... “While NRC 

was able to substantiate that certain (facts/statements/conditions regarding _____) were true, 

NRC was unable to confirm or validate an impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRCregulated activity.”] 

FOR ANY CATEGORY III CONCERN THAT INVOLVED AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE 

[If an RFI was sent to the licensee, and the security concern is determined to be Category III, 

the documentation of allegation concern closure should reference the feedback provided by the 

licensee [NOTE: Do not discuss specifics of corrective/compensatory actions taken] but should 

also distinctly describe NRC’s evaluation and conclusions regarding the concern based on all 

pertinent information, including the licensee’s RFI response. Specifically, in addition to restating 

the alleger’s concern, the concern response should separately describe (1) the licensee’s 

evaluation and response (without describing corrective/compensatory actions) and (2) NRC’s 

evaluation of the licensee’s response and overall conclusions regarding the validity of the 

concern. The description of NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response should articulate any 

NRC staff independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted (do not discuss 

any efforts to independently verify corrective/compensatory actions) to validate aspects of the 

licensee’s response.] 

FOR CATEGORY III CONCERNS INVOLVING A MINOR FINDING OR VIOLATION AND 

REQUIRING COMPENSATORY ACTIONS 

The safety significance of the violation of [briefly discuss identified violation] was evaluated by 

the NRC and found to be minor. (Licensee name) has been informed of this matter and has 

promptly corrected the identified deficiency/deficiencies or taken prompt compensatory action, 

thereby establishing licensee compliance with applicable physical protection and security 
Enclosure 7 

7-3 

requirements). [NOTE: Do not discuss specifics of corrective/compensatory actions taken.] 

Minor violations represent items of low safety significance and are not subject to formal 

enforcement action or documentation by the NRC. Therefore, this minor finding/violation will not 

be documented in an inspection report, and no further regulatory action is planned. 

FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS, USE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE 

While we cannot provide the specific details regarding our evaluation of your concern, we note 

that (an NRC inspection was recently conducted in the security area OR [IF THE CONCERN 

INVOLVED AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE] we note that NRC staff recently requested that 

(licensee name) evaluate this/these and other matter(s) in the security area). NRC staff 

reviewed the (licensee name’s) response to ensure that it was of adequate scope and depth. 

(Based on the NRC assessment no findings were identified OR The NRC assessment resulted 

in at least one finding). Identified deficiencies were promptly corrected or addressed by 

compensatory action, thereby establishing licensee compliance with applicable physical 

protection and security requirements. To ensure that we do not unnecessarily release 

information that would reveal potential security-related vulnerabilities, we are unable to inform 

you if any finding is specifically associated with the concern(s) you raised. 

FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS AND III CONCERNS WHICH RESULT IN A MINOR FINDING 

OR VIOLATION REQUIRING COMPENSATORY ACTIONS, WHEN THE ALLEGER IS A 

SECURITY FORCE MEMBER AT THE FACILITY 

Since you are a member of the security force and are permitted access to information related to 

physical security matters at (facility name), (NRC staff member name(s)) discussed with you on 

(date) OR scheduled a telephone conference with you and with (NRC staff member name(s)) on 

(date) to discuss [FOR CATEGORY III CONCERNS REQUIRING COMPENSATORY 

ACTIONS] the compensatory actions taken in relation to your concern(s) OR [FOR CATEGORY 

II CONCERNS] the NRC’s actions and conclusions regarding your concern(s). 

FOR CATEGORY I CONCERNS, USE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE 

As indicated in the cover letter, normally, when we have completed our review of an allegation, 

we provide the concerned individual with information as to whether their concern was 

substantiated and details on the actions taken by the NRC to evaluate the concern. However, 

due to the nature of the security-related issue(s) associated with your concern(s) and to ensure 

that we are not unnecessarily releasing information that would reveal any potential securityrelated vulnerability, we are unable to provide you with specific details regarding the NRC’s 

evaluation of your concern. 

[Repeat for additional concerns] 
Enclosure 8 

SAMPLE CLOSURE MEMORANDUM TO FILE 

(FOR ANONYMOUS ALLEGATIONS, NRC STAFF-SUSPECTED OR LICENSEE-IDENTIFIED 

WRONGDOING, OR WHEN AN ALLEGER SPECIFICALLY REQUESTS NO 

CORRESPONDENCE FROM NRC) 

MEMORANDUM TO: Allegation File XXXX-200Y-A-XXXX or OAC 

FROM: (responsible staff member or OAC) 

SUBJECT: CLOSURE OF ALLEGATION XXXX-200Y-A-XXXX REGARDING 

(site/facility) 

USE FOR AN ANONYMOUS ALLEGATION OR NRC STAFF-SUSPECTED/LICENSEEIDENTIFIED WRONGDOING 

On _____, the NRC received an anonymous allegation [or opened an allegation file based on 

an NRC staff-suspected or licensee-identified wrongdoing matter] that/regarding (subject of 

allegation) at (facility). 

USE WHEN ALLEGER HAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED NO CORRESPONDENCE 

On _____, the NRC received an allegation that/regarding (subject of allegation) at (facility). 

During the course of the staff’s review, the alleger specifically requested not to receive 

correspondence from NRC related to this matter. [An attempt was made to re-contact the 

alleger to explain the advantages of continued involvement in the allegation process. However, 

the staff was unsuccessful in re-contacting the alleger.] OR [Although the advantages of 

continued involvement in the allegation process were explained to the alleger during a 

telephone call on _____ / in a letter dated _____, the alleger insisted that no further contact be 

provided by the NRC.] NRC follow up action is described in this memorandum. 

USE FOR ALL CLOSURE MEMORANDUMS 

An allegation review board(s) (ARB(s)) was/were convened on (date(s)). The ARB(s) 

concluded that (describe actions prescribed) to evaluate the allegation (or staff suspected/ 

licensee-identified wrongdoing matter). Enclosure 1 to this letter lists the concern(s) and 

describes the staff’s review and conclusions regarding that/each concern. 

Based on the anonymous nature of the allegation OR since the alleger specifically requested 

not to receive correspondence from NRC OR Since this is an NRC staff-suspected wrongdoing 

OR a licensee-identified wrongdoing matter, no response to the alleger is appropriate. (USE IF 

APPROPRIATE) Remaining NRC actions in this matter will be processed and tracked through 

the enforcement process. 

This allegation is closed. 

Enclosure(s): As stated 
Enclosure 8 

FORMAT FOR ENCLOSURE TO CLOSURE MEMORANDUM 

Concern 1: 

Describe each concern as provided or as modified by the alleger (if the alleger provided 

clarifying information to better describe his or her concern during the course of NRC’s review). 

Response to Concern 1: 

(Provide a direct answer to each concern, stating what was evaluated, how it was evaluated, 

and providing NRC’s conclusions regarding the validity of the concern. It is preferable that an 

overall conclusion be provided indicating that the concern was substantiated, unsubstantiated, 

or partially substantiated, as long as that overall conclusion is well supported by the 

accompanying discussion regarding the evaluation of the concern. However, if providing such 

an overall conclusion would be confusing (e.g., if aspects of the concern were substantiated, but 

the alleged impropriety or inadequacy was not found to be valid), alternate wording may be 

used, such as... “While NRC was able to substantiate that certain (facts/statements/conditions 

regarding _____) were true, NRC was unable to confirm or validate an impropriety or 

inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activity.” (If appropriate add: NRC findings 

regarding this concern are documented in (inspection report number, or other document 

citation) dated ______. A copy of the relevant section(s) of the report/document is/are 

enclosed.) 

FOR ANY CONCERN THAT INVOLVED AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE 

[If an RFI was sent to the licensee, the documentation of allegation concern closure should 

reference the feedback provided by the licensee but should also distinctly describe NRC’s 

evaluation and conclusions regarding the concern based on all pertinent information, including 

the licensee’s RFI response. Specifically, in addition to restating the alleger’s concern, the 

concern response should separately describe (1) the licensee’s evaluation and response and 

(2) NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response and overall conclusions regarding the validity of 

the concern. The description of NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response should articulate 

any NRC staff independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted to validate 

aspects of the licensee’s response.] 

[Repeat for Additional Concerns] 

[See Enclosure 6, “Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Other than Security Concerns),” for 

Suggested Wording in Response to Certain Types of Concerns (e.g., if concern involved 10 

CFR 2.390 information, If OI returns potential wrongdoing issue to staff without completing the 

investigation, if concern involves enforcement/assessment process outcomes.]