ALLEGATION PROGRAM 

 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT

 Calendar Year 2009

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Enforcement 

Washington, DC 20555
-iCONTENTS 

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

OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT PROGRAM ACTIVITIES .............................................................. 3 

Enhancements to the Allegation Process ........................................................................... 3 

Safety Conscious Work Environment .................................................................................. 4 

TRENDS IN ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................................... 7 

National Trends ................................................................................................................... 7 

Reactor Licensee Trends ........................................................................................ 8 

Materials Licensee Trends ...................................................................................... 9 

Source Trends ....................................................................................................... 10 

Agreement State Trends ....................................................................................... 11 

Allegation Trends for Selected Reactor Sites ................................................................... 13 

San Onofre Units 2 and 3 ...................................................................................... 13 

Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 ................................................................................. 14 

Saint Lucie Units 1 and 2 ....................................................................................... 15 

Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3 ................................................................................... 16 

Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 .................................................................................. 17 

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 .................................................................................... 18 

Limerick Units 1 and 2 ........................................................................................... 19 

Oyster Creek .......................................................................................................... 20 

Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 ................................................................................... 21 

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 ..................................................................................... 21 

South Texas Units 1 and 2 .................................................................................... 22 

Allegation Trends for Selected Materials Licensees ......................................................... 23 

National Enrichment Facility .................................................................................. 23 

Allegation Trends for Selected Vendors ............................................................................ 24 

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 25 

APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................... 26 

FIGURES

1 Allegations Received by Calendar Year ............................................................................. 7 

2 Reactor Issues Nationwide 2009 ........................................................................................ 8 

3 Materials Licensee Types Nationwide 2009 ....................................................................... 9 

4 Allegations by Source Category 2009 .............................................................................. 10 

5 Agreement States ............................................................................................................. 11 

6 San Onofre Allegations ..................................................................................................... 13 

7 Diablo Canyon Allegations ............................................................................................... 14

8 Saint Lucie Allegations ..................................................................................................... 15 

9 Palo Verde Allegations .....................................................................................................16 

10 Susquehanna Allegations ................................................................................................. 17 

11 Turkey Point Allegations ................................................................................................... 18 

12 Limerick Allegations .......................................................................................................... 19 

13 Oyster Creek Allegations ..................................................................................................20 

14 Prairie Island Allegations .................................................................................................. 21 

15 Indian Point Allegations .................................................................................................... 21 

16 South Texas Allegations ...................................................................................................22 

17 National Enrichment Facility Allegations .......................................................................... 23 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Management Directive 8.8, “Management of 

Allegations,” dated February 4, 1999, requires that the Agency Allegation Advisor prepare an 

annual report for the Executive Director for Operations that analyzes allegation trends. This 

annual report fulfills that commitment by providing national, regional, and site-specific trend 

analyses. 

In addition, significant staff activity in calendar year (CY) 2009 involving the Allegation Program 

and related policies warrants mention in this report. The agency continued to address lessons 

learned regarding the handling of allegations of inattentive security officers at the Peach Bottom 

Atomic Power Station, resulting in enhancements to the allegation process. In addition, the 

allegation staff continues to implement the agency-sponsored alternative dispute resolution 

process (Early-ADR) for discrimination allegations. Sixteen percent of the discrimination cases 

raised in CY 2009 that were offered Early-ADR reached settlement. 

With regard to allegation trends, after declining slightly since CY 2005, the total number of 

allegations received increased for the second straight year by about 10 percent. The increase is 

primarily due to substantive increases in allegations received at several reactor facilities and one 

fuel cycle facility, and does not appear to be the result of a general industry issue or other 

external factor. Each allegation can include multiple concerns and in CY 2009, coinciding with 

the overall increase in allegations received, the total volume of allegation concerns received 

increased in all of the regions. In particular Regions II and III, each received approximately 30 

percent more concerns this calendar year. Regarding the subset of concerns involving materials 

licensees, Region II experienced a significant increase of approximately 125 percent primarily 

concerning three fuel facilities, with 20 percent of the allegations including four or more 

concerns. The largest percentage of concerns received nationwide continues to be related to 

security, although fewer concerns were received involving security in CY 2009 than in recent 

years. In the aftermath of the 2007 event involving inattentive security officers at the Peach 

Bottom Atomic Power Station, there has been considerable effort to improve security force 

working conditions and to treat the security force as a more integral part of facility activities at 

many sites. That, coupled with increased familiarity with post 9/11 security requirements, is 

believed to have contributed to a reduction in the number of concerns raised at most sites. 

In CY 2009, the NRC reviewed the effectiveness of nine Agreement State programs’ responses 

to allegations and concluded that the Agreement States continue to promptly address concerns 

raised, thoroughly document their investigations and closeout actions, inform the allegers of the 

outcomes, and protect the identity of allegers. 

For some reactor licensees, the NRC received allegations in numbers that warranted additional 

analysis.1

 In preparing this report, the staff reviewed a 5-year history of allegations for reactor 

and materials licensees and vendors to identify adverse trends. The analysis focused on 

allegations that originated from onsite sources to help inform the NRC’s review of the Safety 

Conscious Work Environment (SCWE). The staff selected eleven reactor sites and one fuel 

cycle facility for a more in-depth review: San Onofre Units 2 and 3; Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2; 

Saint Lucie Units 1 and 2; Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3; Susquehanna Units 1 and 2; Turkey 

Point Units 3 and 4; Limerick Units 1 and 2; Oyster Creek; Prairie Island Units 1 and 2; Indian 

 

1 The total number of allegations received concerning reactor licensees from all sources, as well as other 

information concerning the Allegation Program, appears on the NRC=s public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/statistics.html. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

2 

Point Units 2 and 3; South Texas Units 1 and 2; and the National Enrichment Facility. The 

report discusses allegation trends at each of these sites. In summary, the trends in most cases 

did not suggest a concern about the environment for raising concerns. In other cases, the 

trends are indicative of a weakening SCWE and the NRC has engaged the licensee and is 

closely monitoring the licensee’s activities to address the weaknesses. Finally, because of 

concerns about the SCWE, the NRC issued a chilling effect letter to one licensee requesting an 

action plan to improve the SCWE that specifically addresses how each avenue for raising 

concerns will be improved. No vendors were the subject of allegations at a level that warranted 

additional analysis. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

3 

OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

In calendar year (CY) 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) undertook certain 

significant activities that affected the Allegation Program and related policies and that warrant 

discussion in this report. The agency continued to address lessons learned regarding the 

handling of allegations in CY 2007 of inattentive security officers at the Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, resulting in enhancements to the allegation process. In addition, the allegation 

staff continues to implement the agency-sponsored alternative dispute resolution (Early-ADR) 

process for discrimination allegations. Sixteen percent of the discrimination cases offered 

Early-ADR in CY 2009 reached settlement. These areas are discussed in more detail below. 

Enhancements to the Allegation Process

The staff continued its efforts to address 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). As 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 as a result of fatigue caused by excessive overtime. In addition to identifying one specific 

location where the officers were allegedly sleeping, the alleger indicated that the security officers 

were also using other nonspecified locations. The alleger requested that the NRC not contact 

him about the concerns, and the staff, respecting his request and following the then-existing 

common practice to honor an alleger’s request for no further contact, did not contact him to ask 

about other potential locations or to discuss other aspects of the concerns and the agency’s 

proposed handling of them.2 

The staff requested that the licensee conduct an evaluation of the specific concerns that the 

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

the NRC for review, including documentation of any corrective actions that it had taken in 

response to the evaluation. The licensee did not substantiate the concerns. The NRC reviewed 

the licensee’s response, gathered some additional information, and similarly was unable to 

substantiate the concerns. 

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

from a reporter that included video evidence of a number of apparently inattentive security 

officers at Peach Bottom in the ready room (a room where security officers who are 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 the required corrective 

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

in February 2008 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 

 

2 As part of the staff’s evaluation of an allegation, it is the agency’s policy to request a written evaluation of 

allegation concerns from the licensee in all cases involving an overriding safety issue, and for other 

allegation concerns whenever possible and appropriate, after considering certain conditions, such as 

whether doing so could compromising an alleger’s identity. When conditions do not inhibit the agency from 

issuing such a request, the NRC considers it 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. 

Furthermore, engaging the licensee in the evaluation of an allegation provides the agency with unique 

insights into the licensee’s handling of employee concerns, and provides the licensee with unique insights 

into their own safety culture. The staff is directed to review and independently verify the licensee’s response 

and it is the staff’s evaluation and conclusions that provide the basis for closure. Historically, the agency has 

made such requests for approximately 40 percent of allegations. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

4 

Accession No. ML080440012) with cross-cutting aspects in both the safety conscious work 

environment and human performance areas and issued a civil penalty in January 2009 for the 

related violation following an NRC Office of Investigations (OI) investigation (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML083530084). In addition, because the September 2007 video evidence demonstrated 

that the March 2007 allegation, although less specific, was valid, the agency subsequently 

conducted several internal reviews to determine what it could have done better in response to 

the March 2007 allegation and what clarifications or modifications should be made to the NRC 

allegation process to provide the staff with better opportunities to discover such inappropriate 

activity earlier. 

Lessons-learned reviews included an assessment made by the Agency Allegation Advisor, a 

Region I review team analysis, and a Senior Executive Review Panel evaluation of the events 

related to the Peach Bottom allegations. The Commission approved recommendations for 

enhancing the Allegation Program resulting from these reviews and directed the staff to discuss 

pending changes with internal and external stakeholders (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML081610572). On February 13, 2009, the staff conducted a public workshop to solicit external 

stakeholder input on Allegation Guidance Memorandum (AGM) 2008-001, “Interim Guidance in 

Response to Lessons Learned from the Allegation Assessment of Inattentive Security Officers at 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,” dated December 29, 2008. Revision 1 to AGM 2008-001 

was presented to the Commission and finalized in early 2010 and reflects enhancements based 

on the stakeholder comments. 

The guidance for the NRC staff responsible for handling allegations was enhanced in the 

following program areas: 

• allegation terminology 

• contacting allegers 

• licensee-initiated Alternative Dispute Resolution processes 

• allegation requests for information (RFIs) 

• NRC assessment of licensee responses to RFIs 

• resident and nonresident inspector knowledge of allegation activity 

• allegation closure documentation involving a licensee response to an RFI 

• public discussion of specific allegation-related information 

• alleger responses after closure 

Safety Conscious Work Environment

The 1996 NRC Policy Statement, “Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry To Raise 

Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation,” outlines the agency’s expectations that licensees 

and other employers subject to NRC authority establish and maintain a Safety Conscious Work 

Environment (SCWE). The NRC defines a SCWE as an environment in which 

(1) employees are encouraged to raise safety concerns to their employers or the NRC without 

fear of retaliation, (2) concerns are promptly reviewed, given the proper priority, and 

appropriately resolved, and (3) timely feedback is provided. 

The staff gathers insights into the SCWE at a particular site in several ways, including reviewing 

the number and nature of allegations concerning that site and documenting its observations 

concerning a site’s SCWE based on interviews with licensee employees and reviews of pertinent 

documents during the baseline problem identification and resolution inspections. Should the 

staff discern that a work environment is “chilled,” (i.e., not conducive to raising safety concerns), 

the NRC may request, in writing, information concerning the licensee’s SCWE. Such 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

5 

correspondence is called a chilling effect letter. The agency also initiates chilling effect letters 

after a finding of discrimination related to raising safety concerns by the U.S. Department of 

Labor under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, or by the NRC 

under the following employee protection regulations: 

• Title 10 CFR Part 19, “Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers: Inspection and 

Investigations,” (10 CFR Part 19) 

• 10 CFR Part 30, “Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct 

Material” 

• 10 CFR Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material” 

• 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities” 

• 10 CFR Part 60, “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories” 

• 10 CFR Part 61, “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste” 

• 10 CFR Part 63, “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada” 

• 10 CFR Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material” 

• 10 CFR Part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear 

Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste” 

• 10 CFR Part 76, “Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants” 

• 10 CFR Part 150, “Exemptions and Continued Regulatory Authority in Agreement States 

and in Offshore Waters under Section 274” 

In CY 2009, the agency issued one chilling effect letter concerning the Susquehanna Steam 

Electric Station (Susquehanna) outlining the agency’s concern with the progress and 

effectiveness of their actions in 2008 to address indications of a declining SCWE and negative 

employee perceptions, as it may impact employee willingness to raise safety concerns at 

Susquehanna. Moreover, the NRC stated that it was not clear full alignment had been achieved 

within the first-line supervisor and mid-level management ranks regarding support of efforts to 

improve the SCWE. This issue is discussed in more detail later in this report. 

In October 2004, the staff implemented the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program which 

included the opportunity for using ADR early in the allegation process for cases of alleged 

discrimination before the NRC investigates the allegation. This allows additional opportunities 

for the parties to resolve their differences outside of the normal regulatory framework. EarlyADR involves the use of a neutral third-party to facilitate discussion and the timely settlement of 

the discrimination concern. The NRC believes that voluntary dispute resolution by the parties 

using the communication opportunities afforded in the Early-ADR process can stem the inherent 

damage such disputes can inflict on the SCWE more quickly than an investigation can. At any 

time, either party can exit the ADR process and, if the alleger still wants to pursue the 

discrimination matter, the option of an NRC investigation remains. If a settlement is reached, 

however, the staff will not pursue an investigation or subsequent enforcement of discrimination 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

6 

findings. The NRC also considers settlements resulting from licensee-initiated mediation as 

equivalent to settlements reached under the Early-ADR Program. 

The NRC made 45 Early-ADR offers in association with discrimination allegations raised in CY 

2009, of which 15 (33 percent) resulted in agreements to mediate. Of those 15 cases, 7 

(47 percent) mediated discrimination concerns resulted in the parties reaching a mutually 

agreeable settlement. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

7 

TRENDS IN ALLEGATIONS

The NRC monitors allegations to discern trends or marked increases that might prompt the 

agency to question a licensee about the causes of such changes or trends. In preparing this 

report, the staff reviewed a 5-year history of allegations received for reactor and materials 

licensees and vendors. The staff focused on those allegations that have the potential to provide 

insights into the SCWE at a given facility. Such allegations include those submitted by current or 

former licensee or contractor employees or by anonymous sources that indicate an 

unwillingness to raise safety concerns internally. For power reactor facilities, the staff analyzes 

recent allegation activity twice a year in support of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) midcycle and end-of-cycle assessments. In addition, the staff may perform an analysis for a 

particular site or licensee whenever allegations or inspection findings indicate that such an 

analysis is warranted. 

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

received, shifts in users of the Allegation Program, and the effect of Allegation Program 

implementation on the workload in the regions and program offices. The following section 

discusses these trends. 

National Trends

National trends are of interest because they provide general information to the staff about the 

effect of external factors, plant events, and industry efforts to improve the SCWE at 

NRC-licensed facilities. In addition, they can be useful in developing budget and planning 

assumptions to support future agency and Allegation Program needs. Figure 1 shows there was 

a slight declining trend in the total number of allegations received by NRC from CY 2005 through 

CY 2007. In each of CY 2008 and CY 2009 however, the total number of allegations received 

increased by about 10 percent 

over the previous year, 

primarily due to substantive 

increases in allegations 

received at several reactor 

facilities and one fuel cycle 

facility. The increases do not 

appear to be the result of a 

general industry issue or other 

external factor as the reasons 

for the increases in allegations 

at these facilities were plantspecific and varied (e.g., 

significant outage activity, 

construction activity, work 

environment issues, work 

planning or corrective action 

program changes). 

The number of allegations processed by the NRC that involve Agreement State matters 

continues to decline to a minimal level as additional States achieve Agreement State status. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia and State of New Jersey both became Agreement States in CY 

2009, bringing the total number of Agreement States to 37 by the end of calendar year. Most 

individuals who contact the NRC with concerns about Agreement State licensees indicate a 

willingness to contact and be contacted directly by Agreement State personnel about the 

0

200

400

600

800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FIGURE 1 - ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED BY 

CALENDAR YEAR

Reactor Materials Agreement State
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

8 

evaluation of their concern(s), once the Agreement State program is explained to them. Such 

matters are forwarded to the Agreement State and are not processed by the NRC as allegations. 

Generally, the NRC employs the Allegation Program only to track the evaluation of concerns 

about Agreement State licensees when the concerned individual does not want his or her 

identity to be revealed to the Agreement State. 

Because each allegation can include multiple concerns, the number of concerns received can 

provide more specific information on the staff effort needed for an appropriate response. Over 

the last several years, in all but one year,3

 the trend in the total number of concerns has 

paralleled the trend in total allegations; e.g., if the number of allegations decreased, so did the 

number of concerns. In CY 2009, the number of allegations and concerns increased in every 

region. Regions II and III each received approximately 30 percent more concerns this calendar 

year. Regarding the subset of concerns involving materials licensees, Region II experienced an 

increase of approximately 125 percent; primarily concerning three fuel facilities, with 20 percent 

of the allegations including four or more concerns. 

Reactor Licensee Trends

To provide further insight into areas in which the NRC is allocating resources on reactor-related 

allegation follow-up, Figure 2 depicts the 13 functional areas that represent approximately 

80 percent of the issues received nationwide in CY 2009.4

As indicated in Figure 2, security issues comprised the largest percentage of allegation concerns 

received in CY 2009. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, security-related 

concerns have continued to represent the greatest percentage of allegation concerns received in 

 

3 In CY 2007, although the total number of allegations decreased, the number of concerns actually increased 

for reactor facilities in almost every region and program office. 

4 The agency received few concerns in the areas not depicted in Figure 2, which represent the remaining 20 

percent of the issues received. These areas include Chemistry; Civil/Structural; Construction; Cyber 

Security; Electrical; Emergency Preparedness; Employee Concerns Programs; Environmental; Falsification; 

Fatigue/Overtime; Fire Protection; In-service Testing; Instrumentation and Control; Licensing; Mechanical; 

Non-Destructive Examination; Radwaste; Safeguards; and Other. 

FIGURE 2 - REACTOR ISSUES NATIONWIDE 2009

Training/Qual

5%

Security

14%

Safety Culture

3%

Fitness for 

Duty

7%

Quality 

Assurance

4% Engineering

5%

Access 

Authorization

6%

Wrongdoing

6%

Operations

7%

Health Physics

11%

Discrimination 

13%

Corrective 

Action

6%

Chilling Effect

13%

Security Chilling Effect Discrimination

Health Physics Fitness for Duty Operations

Wrongdoing Access Authorization Corrective Action

Training/Qual Engineering Quality Assurance

Safety Culture
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

9 

each subsequent calendar year. Since CY 2005, the overall percentage of reactor security 

concerns has steadily decreased, but the actual number of concerns has increased indicating 

that concerns in this area remain prominent following 2001. In CY 2009, both the percentage of 

security-related concerns and the actual number decreased. In the aftermath of the 2007 event 

involving inattentive security officers at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, there has been 

considerable effort to improve security force working conditions and to treat the security force as 

a more integral part of facility activities at many sites. That, coupled with increased familiarity 

with post 9/11 security requirements, is believed to have contributed to a reduction in the number 

of concerns raised at most sites. 

Between CY 2004 and CY 2007, the NRC received a sustained 8-9 percent of chilling effect or 

chilled work environment concerns alleging work environments not conducive to raising safety 

concerns. That percentage increased in CY 2008 and again in CY 2009. The overall 

percentage of reactor-related chilling effect concerns in CY 2009 increased to 13 percent of all 

reactor allegations concerns received, largely due to a sharp increase in SCWE-related 

concerns at one reactor. There was a notable increase in the number and percentage of 

discrimination concerns raised in the reactor area in CY 2009. Between CY 2004 to CY 2008, 

the percentage remained consistent at approximately 10 percent per year. In CY 2009; 

however, the volume increased and the percentage rose to 13 percent. Approximately half of 

the discrimination concerns raised in the reactor area in CY 2009 came from workers in the 

functional areas of maintenance, security, and health physics. 

Materials Licensee Trends

Because of the many different types of materials licensees and because the activities performed 

by these licensees varies greatly, a comparison of the types of issues received does not produce 

meaningful results. For insights into the areas where the NRC focused its attention regarding 

materials-related allegations, Figure 3 depicts the six types of materials licensees that accounted 

for approximately 80 percent of allegation concerns received by the NRC nationwide.5

 

 

5 The agency received few concerns about the materials licensee types not depicted in Figure 3, which 

represent the remaining 20 percent of the issues received. These licensee types include Academic; Casks; 

Decommissioning Materials; General Licensee; Irradiators; Nuclear Pharmacies; Special Nuclear Material; 

Test/Research Reactor; Waste Disposal; Well Logging; and Other. 

FIGURE 3 - MATERIALS LICENSEE TYPES NATIONWIDE 2009

Fuel Facililty

54%

Radiography

17%

Medical

13%

Nuclear Gauges

7%

Exempt 

Distribution

4%

Decommisioning 

Reactor

5%

Fuel Facililty Radiography Medical

Nuclear Gauges Decommisioning Reactor Exempt Distribution
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

10 

Since CY 2004, the number of allegations related to fuel cycle facilities constituted the highest 

percentage (30-50 percent) of the allegation concerns received by the NRC in the materials 

area. In CY 2009, the number of fuel facility-related concerns increased to a level higher than in 

any of the prior five years. The substantive increase was due to a sharp increase in allegation 

concerns related to a fuel facility that continues to transition from construction to operating 

status. 

The medical area has for a number of years comprised the second highest percentage of 

materials-related allegation concerns at about 20 percent per year between CY 2004 and CY 

2008. However, the volume of allegations concerning the medical facilities dropped significantly 

in CY 2009. 

Source Trends

Figure 4 provides a breakdown of 99 percent of the sources for reactors and materials 

allegations received in CY 2009.6

 The data indicate that the distribution of source categories 

remained consistent between CY 2005 and CY 2009. That is, the primary sources of allegations 

continue to be employees of licensees (or former employees) and contractors (or former 

contractors). It follows that the percentage of reactors and materials allegations from other 

sources has also remained largely unchanged over the review period. 

In considering those allegation sources previously mentioned as having the potential to provide 

insights into the SCWE at a given facility (i.e., allegations submitted by current or former 

licensee or contractor employees or by anonymous sources), it is notable that the percentage of 

allegations from these sources since CY 2005 has remained consistently in the mid-70 percent. 

In comparing the sources of materials allegations to those of reactor allegations over the past 

five years, the largest source for both is consistently licensee (or former licensee) employees. 

For reactor allegations, the next largest sources are contractor (or former contractor) employees, 

 

6 The NRC received few concerns from the News Media representing only 1 percent of sources. 

FIGURE 4 - ALLEGATIONS BY SOURCE CATEGORY 2009

Licensee 

Employee

41%

Contractor 

Employee

20%

Anonymous

13%

Private Citizen

8%

Licensee

8%

Special Interest 

Group

1%

Federal/State/Loc 

Govt

1%

NRC

8%

Licensee Employee Contractor Employee Anonymous

Private Citizen NRC Licensee

Special Interest Group Federal/State/Local Govt
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

11 

anonymous allegers, and private citizens, in that order. Private citizens are the second most 

frequent source of materials-related allegations, followed by anonymous allegers and contractor 

(or former contractor) employees. This is understandable since materials licensees employ 

fewer contract personnel and their activities involve more direct interaction with the public. 

Two of the source categories deserve some explanation. The source category ANRC@

designates an NRC staff member who suspects that a regulatory requirement has been violated 

deliberately or as a result of careless disregard, prompting the initiation of an investigation by the 

NRC Office of Investigations. The source category ALicensee@ denotes that a licensee 

representative, acting in his or her official capacity, has reported a potential wrongdoing to the 

NRC. The agency staff assigns an allegation process tracking number to such items to allow it 

to track the progress of the wrongdoing issue’s evaluation. 

Agreement State Trends

Under the authority granted in Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act (the Act), as amended, the 

NRC may relinquish its authority to regulate certain byproduct, source, and limited quantities of 

special nuclear material to a State government through a mutual agreement. A State that has 

entered into this agreement with NRC is called an Agreement State. Prior to entering into this 

agreement, States must first demonstrate that their regulatory programs are adequate to protect 

public health and safety and compatible with NRC’s program. By the end of CY 2009, there 

were 37 Agreement States. Virginia became an Agreement State in March 2009, and New 

Jersey became an Agreement State in September 2009. Figure 5 below depicts the current 37 

Agreement States. 

FIGURE 5 - AGREEMENT STATES 

To ensure that Agreement States maintain a program that is adequate to protect public health 

and safety and compatible with NRC’s program, NRC has a statutory responsibility to 

periodically review the actions of the Agreement States. This authority is granted under Section 

274j of the Act. NRC uses the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

12 

to satisfy its statutory responsibility. For more information on NRC’s Agreement State Program 

or IMPEP, please visit the NRC’s Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs website at http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/. 

In CY 2009, NRC conducted routine IMPEP reviews of nine Agreement State programs. The 

review teams evaluated the effectiveness of the Agreement State programs’ responses to 

allegations by reviewing casework and documentation for 48 allegations cumulatively received 

by all of the programs reviewed. Of the 48 allegations reviewed, NRC referred 14 to the 

Agreement State programs; the States received the other allegations directly from concerned 

individuals. In all cases, the review teams concluded that the States consistently took prompt 

and appropriate action in response to concerns raised and that the States documented the 

results of their investigations and closeout actions, including notifications to the allegers of the 

outcomes of the investigations when the allegers’ identities were known. The review team 

determined that the States that were reviewed in CY 2009 adequately protected the identity of 

any allegers that requested anonymity. In general, the results of the CY 2009 IMPEP Reviews 

demonstrate that the Agreement States continue to rank response to allegations as a high 

priority in protecting public health and safety. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

13 

Allegation Trends for Selected Reactor Sites 

Trending the number and nature of allegations concerning individual reactor sites is one method 

the NRC staff uses to monitor the SCWE at reactor sites. The appendix to this report provides 

statistics on allegations concerning all operating reactor sites. The NRC received the listed 

allegations during the 5-year period between January 2005 and December 2009 and included 

only allegations received from onsite sources (i.e., those that may be indicative of the health of 

the SCWE). Onsite sources include current or former licensee employees, current or former 

contractor employees, or anonymous allegers. For the purpose of this analysis, the NRC 

assumes that anonymous allegations come from onsite personnel. 

In determining which reactor sites should receive a more indepth review, the staff applied the 

following criterion: 

• The number of onsite allegations exceeds three times the median value for reactor sites. 

For CY 2009, the median number of onsite allegations per reactor site was 3.5. The 11 reactor 

sites that met this criterion are: San Onofre Units 2 and 3 (34); Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 

(15); Saint Lucie Units 1 and 2 (15); Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3 (15); Susquehanna Units 1 and 

2 (15); Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 (14); Limerick Units 1 and 2 (14); Oyster Creek (14); Prairie 

Island Units 1 and 2 (14); Indian Point Units 2 and 3 (12); and South Texas Units 1 and 2 (12). 

Each of these sites is discussed below. 

San Onofre Units 2 and 3

The number of chilling effect, discrimination, and anonymous concerns raised to the NRC 

concerning the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in CY 2009 increased significantly as 

compared to previous years. Half of the concerns received asserted a chilled work environment, 

and more than half of those 

were submitted in the last 

quarter; this is consistent with 

a period of significant activity 

at the site, namely the Unit 2 

steam generator replacement 

outage. The allegations 

received from onsite sources 

in CY 2009 were not localized 

to a particular department; 

rather, the allegations covered 

a wide range of disciplines. 

Because of continuing 

substantive cross-cutting 

issues in the areas of human 

performance and problem 

identification and resolution, 

on March 4, 2009, in “Annual 

Assessment Letter—San 

Onofre Nuclear Generating 

Station” (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML090640307), the NRC asked the licensee to perform an independent assessment of the 

safety culture. The licensee conducted the assessment in spring 2009. Although the licensee 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

10

20

30

40

FIGURE 6 - SAN ONOFRE 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

14 

reported that the safety culture was sufficient at San Onofre to support safe plant operations, it 

also identified a number of corrective actions to preserve and improve the site’s safety culture. 

The NRC performed an inspection in November 2009 and February 2010 to review the results of 

the safety culture assessment and licensee efforts to establish corrective actions in response to 

the assessment. The inspection team conducted a number of focus group interview sessions 

involving more than 500 personnel, as documented in the NRC inspection report (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML100601207). The interviewees represented various functional organizations 

and included both contractors and licensee staff. From the interviews, the NRC concluded that 

some employees in multiple workgroups at San Onofre had the perception that they are not free 

to raise safety concerns using all available avenues, and that management had not been 

effective in encouraging employees to use all available avenues without fear of retaliation. The 

NRC did not identify any safety issues that were not reported through some available avenue. 

In early March 2010, the NRC issued the licensee a chilling effect letter (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML100601272). The letter asked the licensee to provide an action plan to improve the 

SCWE at San Onofre and specifically address how it will improve each avenue for raising 

concerns, including making the corrective action program more user friendly, improving the 

workforce’s knowledge and use of the employee concerns program, ensuring the availability of 

the NRC as an avenue for raising safety concerns, and enhancing the licensee’s open door 

policy. The NRC also asked for information about the licensee’s measures to determine the 

action plan’s effectiveness. The NRC will interface publicly with the licensee periodically to 

discuss the progress on and outcomes of SCWE improvement activities and will monitor 

progress through the baseline inspection program and allegation trend reviews. 

Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2

The number of allegations received from onsite sources regarding the Diablo Canyon site in 

CY 2008 and CY 2009 increased significantly compared to the previous 3 years. However, the 

concerns received in the past year do not indicate any significant discipline, source, or SCWErelated trends, and in the past 

5 years very few allegations have 

related to discrimination. The NRC 

received the majority of the 

allegations in the first and fourth 

quarters of CY 2009. This is 

consistent with periods of 

significant activity at the site, 

namely the Unit 1 steam generator 

replacement outage and the Unit 2 

fall outage. 

The most recent NRC problem 

identification and resolution 

inspection team at Diablo Canyon 

observed that all employees 

interviewed were willing to raise 

safety concerns through at least 

one of the avenues available to 

them. As documented in the NRC 

inspection report (ADAMS Accession No. ML083660204), the team also found that some 

employees were hesitant to raise concerns via one or more of those avenues, including their 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

5

10

15

FIGURE 7 - DIABLO CANYON 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

15 

supervisor, the corrective action program, and the employee concerns program. Although a 

number of less significant issues had been raised through the employee concerns program, a 

review of the files indicated that the program had received no nuclear safety or quality issues, 

other than those allegations for which the NRC requested an evaluation, in the 2 years before 

the inspection. 

The NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at Diablo Canyon through allegation trend 

analysis and normal inspection activities. 

 

Saint Lucie Units 1 and 2

Allegations concerning Saint Lucie increased significantly in CY 2009. The rate at which the 

concerns were received declined over the year. An analysis of the subject matter of the 

allegations received in CY 2009 indicates a SCWE-related trend in security concerns. The 

number of discrimination allegations also increased at Saint Lucie in CY 2009. 

In the latter half of 2008, the 

licensee conducted a fleetwide 

20–30 question survey of the 

SCWE. More than 600 

employees at each site 

responded. The results for Saint 

Lucie indicated declining 

satisfaction with the three 

primary avenues for raising 

concerns internally 

(i.e., management, the corrective 

action program, and the 

employee concerns program). 

With regard to the employee 

concerns program specifically, 

the results showed that licensee 

employees were familiar with the 

program; however, a notable 

percentage of the respondents 

did not have confidence that management would address their concerns or maintain their 

confidentiality. A similar percentage did not believe management supported the program or that 

they could use the program without fear of retaliation. 

The licensee has conducted a root cause evaluation and initiated a plan to improve its corporate 

safety culture, including formalizing the management of employee concerns, initiating a review of 

nuclear safety culture issues by the corporate nuclear review board, benchmarking SCWE 

programs at other facilities, and planning for effectiveness reviews. In early 2010, NRC 

inspectors verified that the licensee was implementing planned actions on schedule, including 

training senior managers on SCWE management and initiating the management review of safety 

culture issues on a routine basis. The NRC interviewed site workers and found that they are 

willing to raise nuclear safety concerns and are knowledgeable of the various methods available 

for raising nuclear safety concerns. 

Saint Lucie experienced a number of significant senior management changes in CY 2009. NRC 

inspectors met with the newly appointed station employee concerns program coordinator and 

manager. Activities initiated to facilitate more awareness and understanding of the employee 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

5

10

15

20

FIGURE 8 - SAINT LUCIE 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

16 

concerns program include involving the program coordinator in departmental meetings, 

relocating the employee concerns program office to address accessibility concerns, and 

developing procedures for the intake of concerns and management of concern resolution. Most 

significantly, the licensee revised the process to perform 3-month followup for nuclear safety 

concerns brought to the program to assess the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in 

response. 

The NRC will interface publicly with the licensee periodically to discuss the progress on and 

outcomes of SCWE improvement activities and will monitor progress closely through the 

baseline inspection program and allegation trend reviews. 

 

Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3

The licensee has made significant improvements in the SCWE at Palo Verde since the issuance 

of a confirmatory action letter (CAL) in February 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080460653) 

that documented the followup efforts committed to by the licensee after an inspection in CY 2007 

based on Inspection Procedure 

95003, “Supplemental Inspection for 

Repetitive Degraded Cornerstones, 

Multiple Degraded Cornerstones, 

Multiple Yellow Inputs or One Red 

Input” (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML080320562). In March 2009, after 

the last of numerous CAL followup 

inspections, the NRC closed the CAL 

based on the licensee’s improved 

safety performance and reasonable 

assurance that the performance 

improvements are sustainable. Also 

closed at this time were substantive 

cross-cutting issues in the areas of 

human performance and problem 

identification and resolution. 

Although the number of allegations 

received has been comparatively high over the past 5 years, the trend has been declining. The 

NRC received allegations from onsite sources consistently throughout CY 2009, with 

concentrations in the first and fourth quarters; this is consistent with periods of significant activity 

at the site, namely the Unit 3 refueling outage in the first part of the year and the Unit 2 refueling 

outage at the end of the year. There was no significant concentration of allegations received 

from any particular source or discipline. In CY 2009, only one allegation concern was raised 

about the SCWE at Palo Verde. However, the number of discrimination concerns did increase 

in CY 2009 compared to prior years. The discrimination concerns in CY 2009 were received 

throughout the year and were not focused in any particular discipline or as a result of any 

particular event or activity. 

The results of the most recent NRC problem identification and resolution inspection completed in 

February 2009 demonstrated the overall willingness of workers at Palo Verde to raise safety 

concerns (ADAMS Accession No. ML090790431). Most of the workers interviewed indicated 

that the Palo Verde site has experienced significant improvement in the SCWE and safety 

culture in general. Much of the improvement was attributed to the new management team and 

its commitment to improved performance. Workers understood the various ways to raise 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

10

20

30

FIGURE 9 - PALO VERDE 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

17 

concerns, although some employees were not aware of the employee concerns program. The 

licensee has since taken steps to improve the visibility of the program. Those workers who were 

aware of the program found it to be a viable option to raise concerns. The workers indicated that 

the improvements to the corrective action program are driving overall performance improvement 

but noted that some additional improvements could still be made. Many workers noted an 

improved level of quality in the evaluation of issues raised. 

The NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at Palo Verde through allegation trend analysis 

and normal inspection activities, including monitoring the state of Palo Verde’s improvement 

initiatives. 

Susquehanna Units 1 and 2

The volume of onsite allegations received in CY 2009 declined significantly from the previous 

year. The rate at which the NRC received concerns was fairly steady throughout the year. An 

analysis of the allegations’ subject matter indicates that the concerns involved a variety of 

disciplines and programs, with 

indications of a SCWE-related 

trend in the health physics 

organization. Approximately one 

quarter of the allegations came 

from anonymous sources, with the 

majority of those in the second half 

of the assessment period. The 

NRC saw a declining trend in 

allegations related to discrimination 

in CY 2009. 

On January 28, 2009, the NRC 

issued the licensee a chilling effect 

letter (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML090280115) expressing 

concern with the progress and 

effectiveness of its actions to 

address indications of a declining 

SCWE at Susquehanna. As discussed in the 2009 midcycle performance assessment letter 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML092440270), issuance of the chilling effect letter met the first criteria 

for consideration of a SCWE substantive cross-cutting issue over the next three plant 

assessment cycles. 

During 2009, the NRC reviewed the licensee’s action plans and root cause evaluation to 

address SCWE issues at the site, performed targeted inspection samples and trend reviews to 

monitor progress, and reviewed the results of an independent culture survey (ADAMS Accession 

Nos. ML091330762, ML092230158, ML093170375, and ML100321652). The inspections 

documented an improving work environment, SCWE metrics, and sitewide safety culture survey 

results. In addition, NRC management conducted several site visits and held a public meeting in 

July 2009 to discuss work environment issues. Furthermore, the licensee made several key 

management changes, addressed several high-interest policy issues, and developed additional 

means for workers to raise issues. 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

10

20

30

40

FIGURE 10 - SUSQUEHANNA 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

18 

Based on direct inspection, allegation trend data, SCWE metrics, and survey results, the NRC 

concluded that the licensee has made reasonable progress in addressing SCWE issues at 

Susquehanna during 2009. Therefore, the staff concluded that at the end of the second of three 

assessment cycles, an SCWE substantive cross-cutting issue did not exist. 

Nonetheless, the NRC will continue to monitor the licensee’s progress in addressing SCWE 

issues at Susquehanna through the baseline inspection program. 

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4

The number of allegations received concerning the Turkey Point site decreased slightly in 

CY 2009 as compared to CY 2008, but it was still high as compared to others in the industry, 

and the volume has been high for 4 of the previous 5 years. The NRC received the concerns for 

Turkey Point at a steady rate over all four quarters. An analysis of the subject matter of the 

allegations received in CY 2009 

indicates a SCWE-related trend in 

security at the site. The number of 

discrimination allegations decreased 

at Turkey Point in CY 2009. 

In early 2008, the NRC requested 

information from the licensee about 

the SCWE, based on allegations 

concerning an event at Turkey Point 

in late 2007 in the operations 

department. The licensee 

conducted an independent 

assessment of the effect of that 

event on employees in the 

operations department with regard 

to their willingness to raise safety 

concerns. It concluded that the 

event did not impact the SCWE. 

Notwithstanding that conclusion, the 

licensee committed to enhance communications between plant operators and senior 

management to ensure constructive interactions. 

In the latter half of 2008, the licensee conducted a fleetwide 20–30 question survey of the 

SCWE. More than 600 employees at each site responded. The results for Turkey Point showed 

that a significant number of respondents in the Operations, Security, and Radiation Protection 

organizations were dissatisfied with the three primary avenues for raising concerns internally 

(i.e., management, the corrective action program, and the employee concerns program). 

With regard to the employee concerns program specifically, the results showed that licensee 

employees were familiar with the program; however, a notable percentage of the respondents 

did not have confidence that management would address their concerns or maintain their 

confidentiality. A similar percentage did not believe that management supported the program or 

that they could use the program without fear of retaliation. In response, the licensee conducted 

a root cause evaluation and initiated a plan to improve its corporate safety culture, including 

formalizing the management of employee concerns, initiating a review of nuclear safety culture 

issues by the corporate nuclear review board, benchmarking the SCWE at other facilities, and 

planning for effectiveness reviews. NRC inspectors met with the newly appointed station 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

5

10

15

20

FIGURE 11 - TURKEY POINT 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

19 

employee concerns program coordinator and manager. Activities initiated to facilitate more 

awareness and understanding of the employee concerns program include involving the program 

coordinator in departmental meetings, relocating the employee concerns program office to 

address accessibility concerns, and developing procedures to take in concerns and manage 

concern resolution. Most significantly, the licensee revised the process to perform a 3-month 

followup for nuclear safety concerns brought to the program to assess the effectiveness of 

corrective actions taken in response. 

The NRC will interface publicly with the licensee periodically to discuss the progress on and 

outcomes of SCWE improvement activities and will closely monitor progress through the 

baseline inspection program and allegation trend reviews. 

Limerick Units 1 and 2

The number of allegations received concerning the Limerick site increased significantly in 

CY 2009. The NRC received allegations in a wide range of disciplines; however, an analysis of 

the subject matter of the allegations 

indicates a specific SCWE-related 

trend in the radiation protection 

department. The number of 

allegations asserting discrimination 

also increased significantly. Several 

of the allegations involved a distinct 

event on site. 

Although the plant conducted a 

planned refueling from mid-March to 

mid-April 2009, only a small number 

of concerns raised during that period 

appear to relate directly to plant 

activities at that time. During the 

outage period, however, an 

anonymous Web posting alleged 

poor site management, which 

prompted the site to conduct 

interviews throughout the site to 

address the concerns noted in the posting. 

The NRC requested information from the licensee via the Allegation Program, independently 

verified and evaluated the situation, and substantiated several concerns related to a poor SCWE 

within the radiation protection department. In response to the substantiated concerns, the 

licensee developed and provided to the NRC a work environment improvement plan. In the 

fourth quarter of CY 2009, NRC inspectors reviewed corrective action program data and 

interviewed radiation protection department technicians regarding the work environment. The 

inspectors concluded that the SCWE was improving and the workforce felt free to raise safety 

issues without fear of retaliation. 

The NRC will maintain oversight of the SCWE at the Limerick site through baseline inspections, 

particularly monitoring the site for further indications of a declining SCWE in the radiation 

protection department, and take additional action if necessary. 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

5

10

15

FIGURE 12 - LIMERICK 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

20 

Oyster Creek

The number of allegations received at Oyster Creek increased significantly in CY 2009. A 

review of the allegations’ subject matter indicates a trend involving the radiation protection and 

operations departments, with many concerns raised about the inappropriate use of management 

authority and tools. Several of the 

chilled work environment concerns 

received related to perceived 

retaliation associated with raising 

safety concerns. 

In spring 2009, Oyster Creek 

completed a nuclear safety culture 

survey. Overall, the results 

demonstrated that the station was 

aligned with the Institute of Nuclear 

Power Operations’ eight principles of a 

strong nuclear safety culture. 

However, the licensee developed a 

plan to address the rising trend in 

allegations. 

In the third quarter of CY 2009, NRC 

inspectors reviewed the licensee’s 

identification of employee concerns 

through various processes, including the corrective action and employee concerns programs, as 

well as the licensee’s evaluation of those issues. The inspectors also reviewed the licensee’s 

action plan to improve the site’s SCWE. This review resulted in no negative findings and 

concluded that the SCWE action plan should help to improve performance in this area. 

Late in the calendar year, the licensee conducted another survey specifically on the employee 

concerns program. The survey identified that the staff lacks confidence in both the 

independence of the program and that management acts on the program investigations 

appropriately. The licensee has initiated corrective actions to address the survey results. 

The NRC will maintain oversight of the SCWE at the Oyster Creek site through normal 

inspection activities and allegation trend analysis, particularly in the areas discussed above, and 

will review performance as actions in the site’s SCWE action plan are completed. 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

5

10

15

FIGURE 13 - OYSTER CREEK 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

21 

Prairie Island Units 1 and 2

The number of both technical and discrimination allegations received concerning the Prairie 

Island site increased, although the rate at which they were received declined throughout the 

year. The concerns raised indicate a 

SCWE-related trend in one group. 

The licensee was aware of the work 

environment challenges in that 

organization and has taken, throughout 

the CY, a number of actions to address 

the issue, including conducting focus 

groups to better define the issues, 

coaching and training the involved 

individuals, and reorganizing the 

department to address issues related 

to group dynamics. An assessment of 

the results of a recent survey is in the 

preliminary stages at the time of this 

report, but the licensee believes it 

indicates an improving work 

environment. Other sitewide activities 

related to the SCWE include the 

completion of SCWE training for new employees and refresher training for current employees in 

early 2009. 

The NRC conducted an inspection in August 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092680208) and, 

based on the condition reports generated, discussions with employees, and survey results, 

found no issues or concerns with the SCWE or the ability to raise safety issues. It appears that 

a distinct event at Prairie Island challenged the SCWE. The licensee is addressing this issue, 

and allegations are trending down since actions were taken to address what the licensee 

characterizes as a harassing environment. The NRC continues its review of discrimination 

allegations and will closely monitor the licensee’s efforts to address the issue, particularly its 

response to the more recent survey of the one group. 

Indian Point Units 2 and 3

Although the total number of allegations 

received concerning Indian Point 

increased significantly as compared to 

the previous year, and several of the 

allegations relate to a chilled work 

environment, the number does not 

appear to indicate an SCWE concern at 

Indian Point. While the number of 

allegations in CY 2009 represents a fourfold increase over CY 2008, based on the 

number of allegations received in several 

prior years, it is likely that the low number 

in 2008 was not representative of 

historical trends. Most of the chilled work 

environment concerns are related to 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

5

10

15

FIGURE 14 - PRAIRIE ISLAND 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

5

10

15

20

FIGURE 15 - INDIAN POINT 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

22 

distinct security issues. In discussions with the NRC, site employee concerns program 

personnel noted that they also observed a large number of concerns related to security. 

In June 2009, inspectors found that plant staff expressed a willingness to use the licensee’s 

corrective action program to identify plant issues and deficiencies (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092040278). The inspectors noted that none of the interviewees stated that he or she 

personally experienced or was aware of a situation where there were indications that an 

individual had been hesitant to raise a safety issue. All persons interviewed demonstrated an 

adequate knowledge of the corrective action and employee concerns programs for raising safety 

issues. Based on these limited interviews, the inspectors concluded that there was no evidence 

of significant challenges to the free flow of information regarding safety concerns. 

In the middle of the year, the licensee also conducted a sitewide safety culture survey that 

identified the security organization as needing management focus. The licensee has developed 

an action plan to address the survey findings. 

Because the number of allegations received in CY 2009 is consistent with the historical 5-year 

average, and the concerns raised do not contain a prevalent or significant theme involving an 

SCWE element, the NRC concludes that the allegation activity does not indicate an inadequate 

or unhealthy SCWE at Indian Point. The NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at Indian 

Point through normal inspection activities, with particular focus on the security area and actions 

taken by the licensee to address survey findings. 

South Texas Units 1 and 2

There do not appear to be any significant negative trends in the willingness of employees to 

raise concerns at South Texas. The number of allegations received from onsite sources did 

increase 50 percent from the number 

received in CY 2008, but the concerns 

received indicate no significant 

discipline, source, or SCWE-related 

trends. Discrimination concerns 

received also increased in CY 2009, 

but they do not indicate a work 

environment issue in a particular plant 

department. 

The NRC completed the most recent 

problem identification and resolution 

inspection team at the site in 

August 2008 and concluded that a 

healthy SCWE exists at the site 

(ADAMS Accession 

No. ML082720004). The licensee 

conducted SCWE training of several 

hundred managers on site in the third 

quarter of CY 2009. A focused 

assessment of the maintenance shop 

was conducted by the licensee in December 2009 in response to issues received during the 

year. South Texas is also piloting an industry initiative to standardize nuclear safety culture 

assessments. The pilot involved the administration in December 2009 of a 70-question survey 

based on Institute of Nuclear Power Operations safety culture principles and followup interviews 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

5

10

15

FIGURE 16 - SOUTH TEXAS 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

23 

by a team consisting of personnel familiar with SCWE and safety culture from other utilities. 

The NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at the South Texas site through normal 

inspection activities, in particular of actions taken in response to the licensee’s surveys taken at 

the end of CY 2009, and allegation trend analysis. 

Allegation Trends for Selected Materials Licensees

The NRC Web site posts allegation statistics for certain fuel cycle facilities (see the appendix to 

this report). Because of the small number of allegations involving other smaller materials 

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

NRC does not publicly provide or include in this report allegation statistics for materials licensees 

other than fuel cycle facilities. 

National Enrichment Facility

In CY 2009, the NRC received allegations at a rate greater than three times the industry median 

from onsite sources at one large fuel cycle facility, the National Enrichment Facility operated by 

Louisiana Energy Services in Eunice, NM. 

The NRC received allegations at a steady rate throughout the year concerning this facility. The 

facility is currently transitioning toward operation from its construction phase that began in 

August 2006. The number of personnel 

on site decreased by almost 50 percent 

in 2009, and this trend will continue as 

the licensee prepares for operational 

status. It is not unusual to see a 

substantive increase in allegations as a 

large facility transitions from construction 

to operation (i.e., as contractors complete 

their activities and transition the oversight 

of facility systems, structures, and 

components to the licensee). 

Nonetheless, the NRC is always 

concerned when it receives volumes of 

allegations of this magnitude and is 

monitoring the situation closely. 

The licensee indicated that its employee 

concerns program received a number of 

concerns involving management 

behaviors and their impact on the SCWE. 

The licensee saw a large increase from CY 2008 to CY 2009 in the number of concerns raised 

as the facility staffing level has been reduced. It received the largest number of concerns in the 

third quarter, which coincided with the largest reduction in workforce for the year. In response to 

the high number of concerns raised internally and externally, the licensee recently conducted 

SCWE training for managers and supervisors. 

The NRC conducted an operational readiness review team inspection in early 2010. The 

purpose of the inspection was to determine whether activities associated with initial plant 

operation could be conducted safely and in accordance with NRC and license requirements. The 

inspection included a review of the licensee’s employee concerns program procedures, 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

10

20

30

FIGURE 17 - NATIONAL 

ENRICHMENT FACILITY 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

24 

databases, and files to ensure adequate documentation, review, and prioritization of nuclear 

safety concerns. The NRC also reviewed employee concerns program files to ensure that 

confidentiality was maintained and to verify that employees received feedback in a timely 

manner on the resolution of their concerns. The inspectors reviewed concern resolutions and 

closure to determine the adequacy of corrective actions and the use of the corrective action 

program, when appropriate. The inspectors reviewed the program’s organizational structure and 

use of contracted investigators to verify that the licensee staff impartially reviewed concerns 

independent of the line organization and reviewed SCWE training material to verify that 

employees were made aware of how to report safety concerns when they were reluctant to 

report them to their line organization. The inspectors reviewed the results of the 2008 safety 

culture assessment and internal and external audits and trends to verify that the licensee was 

monitoring the data and that management received recommendations and lessons learned. The 

inspectors noted recent enhancements to the files, implemented in response to findings 

identified by internal audits. Lastly, the inspectors noted changes to the program to ensure 

adequate oversight of contractor employee concerns programs. The inspectors determined that 

the licensee adequately implemented the program to ensure an environment where employees 

felt free to raise nuclear safety concerns (ADAMS Accession No. ML100850424). 

The NRC will closely continue to monitor allegation activity regarding the National Enrichment 

Facility through normal inspection activities as the facility continues to downsize in its approach 

to operational status. 

Allegation Trends for Selected Vendors 

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

pattern or to provide insights into the work environment, this report does not include more 

indepth reviews of specific vendors. The report also does not provide statistics by contractor or 

vendor because publishing the number of allegations could identify an alleger. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

25 

CONCLUSIONS

From CY 2005 through CY 2007, the trend in the total number of allegations received by the 

NRC declined slightly. However, in CY 2009, the total number of allegations received increased 

for the second straight year by about 10 percent. The increase is primarily a result of 

substantive increases in allegations received at several reactor facilities and one fuel cycle 

facility, and it does not appear to be the result of a general industry issue or other external factor. 

 The largest percentage of concerns received nationwide continues to be related to security, 

although the actual number of security-related concerns declined in CY 2009. The number of 

allegations processed by the NRC involving Agreement State matters continues to decline to a 

minimal level as additional States achieve Agreement State status. Most individuals who 

contact the NRC with concerns about Agreement State licensees agree to have their concerns 

forwarded to the Agreement State for resolution, and the NRC does not process these concerns 

as allegations. To ensure that Agreement States maintain a program that is adequate to protect 

public health and safety and that is compatible with the NRC’s program, the agency periodically 

reviews the actions of the Agreement States. The results of these reviews in CY 2009 

demonstrate that the Agreement States continue to rank response to allegations as a high 

priority in protecting public health and safety. 

The analyses of allegations have provided insights into the SCWE at several facilities. The staff 

has taken action to engage licensees concerning their work environment when warranted and 

will continue to monitor these sites with interest. 

Finally, the NRC developed enhanced guidance for the staff responsible for handling allegations 

in a number of program areas based on input from both internal reviews and external 

stakeholder comments on the lessons learned from the handling of allegations of inattentive 

security officers. The areas enhanced include communicating with allegers; the process for 

requesting information from a licensee related to an allegation; informing the NRC inspectors of 

allegation activity, as appropriate; expectations for review and documentation of allegation 

closure information involving a licensee response to an RFI; and handling alleger feedback after 

the allegation is closed. The NRC staff presented final Allegation Program policy guidance to 

the Commission, which approved it for implementation in early 2010. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

APPENDIX 

ALLEGATION STATISTICS 

OPERATING REACTORS AND FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-1

OPERATING REACTOR ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED FROM ONSITE SOURCES 

Site 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

ARKANSAS 1 & 2 4 4 8 6 3 

BEAVER VALLEY 1 & 2 7 3 1 3 1 

BRAIDWOOD 1 & 2 4 6 5 3 3 

BROWNS FERRY 1, 2 & 3 24 17 11 18 8 

BRUNSWICK 1 & 2 3 1 3 2 5 

BYRON 1 & 2 12 3 9 8 9 

CALLAWAY 11 3 17 2 2 

CALVERT CLIFFS 1 & 2 1 2 1 

CATAWBA 1 & 2 2 3 2 

CLINTON 1 3 1 1 4 

COLUMBIA PLANT 7 3 3 1 9 

COMANCHE PEAK 1 & 2 9 3 4 5 1 

COOK 1 & 2 7 7 3 5 5 

COOPER 1 3 2 3 2 

CRYSTAL RIVER 2 5 4 2 4 

DAVIS-BESSE 9 4 1 

DIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 2 2 2 13 15 

DRESDEN 2 & 3 9 7 8 5 

DUANE ARNOLD 1 1 1 2 1 

FARLEY 1 & 2 4 4 5 5 6 

FERMI 2 3 10 3 3 

FITZPATRICK 3 3 1 2 3 

FORT CALHOUN 2 6 1 3 

GINNA 2 2 2 4 2 

GRAND GULF 7 4 8 4 2 

HARRIS 9 14 14 1 2 

HATCH 1 & 2 3 1 6 7 5 

INDIAN POINT 2 & 3 9 15 19 3 12 

KEWAUNEE 3 4 1 3 

LASALLE 1 & 2 2 1 5 1 

LIMERICK 1 & 2 8 4 1 3 14 

MCGUIRE 1 & 2 2 3 3 

MILLSTONE 2 & 3 10 9 5 8 5 

MONTICELLO 2 2 1 2 2 

NINE MILE POINT 1 & 2 4 5 6 1 

NORTH ANNA 1 & 2 2 1 3 1 1 

OCONEE 1, 2, & 3 3 2 2 1 1 

OYSTER CREEK 14 4 2 6 14 

PALISADES 3 6 5 6 8 

PALO VERDE 1, 2, & 3 22 16 18 17 15 

PEACH BOTTOM 2 & 3 5 6 8 3 8 

PERRY 4 1 1 6 9 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-2

Site 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

PILGRIM 9 6 7 8 2 

POINT BEACH 1 & 2 13 2 1 5 4 

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 & 2 5 6 6 5 14 

QUAD CITIES 1 & 2 2 1 4 4 2 

RIVER BEND 2 3 2 8 5 

ROBINSON 1 1 1 

SALEM/HOPE CREEK 23 14 16 11 7 

SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 10 15 12 18 34 

SEABROOK 10 4 4 10 2 

SEQUOYAH 1 & 2 10 11 13 19 6 

SOUTH TEXAS 1 & 2 4 8 6 8 12 

ST LUCIE 1 & 2 16 15 11 6 15 

SUMMER 3 2 3 

SURRY 1 & 2 2 1 2 2 

SUSQUEHANNA 1 & 2 20 19 13 32 15 

THREE MILE ISLAND 4 1 1 2 9 

TURKEY POINT 3 & 4 10 18 4 19 14 

VERMONT YANKEE 1 4 3 1 2 

VOGTLE 1 & 2 5 5 7 1 2 

WATERFORD 2 2 2 4 3 

WATTS BAR 1 2 6 3 9 4 

WOLF CREEK 3 1 1 7 6 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2009 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-3

FUEL CYCLE FACILITY ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED FROM ONSITE SOURCES 

Site 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PLANT 2 

BWX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3 1 2

FRAMATONE-RICHLAND 1 

GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL 2 1 1 7

HONEYWELL 7 1 4 7

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES 1 1 11 29

NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. 6 1 3 3 5

PADUCAH 7 3 5 3 4

PORTSMOUTH 2 6 2 2 

SHAW AREVA MOX SERVICES 2 1 1

WESTINGHOUSE 8 2 2 4 2

YUCCA MOUNTAIN 1 5