ALLEGATION PROGRAM 

 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT

 Calendar Year 2010

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Enforcement 

Washington, DC 20555
i

CONTENTS 

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

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

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

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

TRENDS IN ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................................... 6 

National Trends ............................................................................................................... 6 

Reactor Licensee Trends..................................................................................... 7 

Materials Licensee Trends ................................................................................... 8 

Source Trends ..................................................................................................... 9 

Allegation Trends for Selected Operating Reactor Sites ................................................ 10 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 ...................................... 10 

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 .................................. 11 

Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4 .................................... 13 

Allegation Trends for Selected Non-Operating Reactor Sites ........................................ 14 

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 ......................................................................... 14 

Allegation Trends for Selected Materials Sites .............................................................. 15 

Honeywell International ..................................................................................... 15 

Allegation Trends for Selected Vendor Sites ................................................................. 16 

Agreement State Licensee Concerns ............................................................................ 16 

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 18 

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................. A-1

FIGURES

1 Allegations Received by Calendar Year ......................................................................... 6 

2 Reactor Issues Nationwide 2010 .................................................................................... 7 

3 Materials Licensee Types Nationwide 2010 ................................................................... 8 

4 Allegations by Source Category 2010 ............................................................................ 9 

5 San Onofre Allegations ................................................................................................ 10 

6 Palo Verde Allegations ................................................................................................. 12 

7 Turkey Point Allegations .............................................................................................. 13 

8 Watts Bar 2 Allegations ................................................................................................ 14 

9 Honeywell Allegations .................................................................................................. 15 

10 Agreement States ........................................................................................................ 16 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

Allegations,” dated November 15, 2010, requires the Agency Allegation Advisor to 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) 2010 involving the NRC’s 

Allegation Program and related policies warrants mention in this report. 

The agency finalized enhancements to the Allegation Program based on lessons learned 

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

Power Station. In addition, the allegation staff continues to implement the agency-sponsored 

alternative dispute resolution process (Early-ADR) for discrimination allegations. Thirteen 

percent of the discrimination cases raised in CY 2010 that were offered Early-ADR reached 

settlement. 

With regard to allegation trends, the trend in the total number of allegations that the NRC 

received in CY 2010 declined slightly after a notable increase in the last 2 years. The decrease 

does not appear to be the result of a general industry issue. Each allegation can include 

multiple concerns, and Regions I and III experienced a decrease in the number of concerns 

received in CY 2010, thus coinciding with the general decrease in allegations. However, 

Regions II and IV received more concerns in CY 2010 than they had the previous year. 

Region IV received approximately 20 percent more concerns in CY 2010, largely because of the 

activity at one site. Chilling effect concerns, largely at one operating site, made up the largest 

percentage of concerns received nationwide. Although security concerns continue to decline, 

the volume of fitness-for-duty and fatigue concerns has steadily increased over the past several 

years. Lastly, the volume of wrongdoing allegation concerns increased approximately 

15 percent in CY 2010. Wrongdoing allegation concerns involved a number of disciplines; the 

largest volume involved the area of health physics. Similarly, a number of the chilling effect 

concerns and discrimination claims also involved health physics personnel. 

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 three operating reactor sites (San 

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 1, 2, and 3; and Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4), one 

nonoperating reactor site (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), and one fuel cycle facility 

(Honeywell International, Inc.) for a more indepth review. The report discusses allegation trends 

at each of these sites. In summary, the trends either did not suggest a concern about the 

environment for raising concerns or may be indicative of a weakening SCWE. In such cases, 

the NRC has engaged the licensee and is closely monitoring its activities to address 

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 the licensee will improve each avenue for raising concerns. No vendors were the subject 

of allegations at a level that warranted additional analysis. 

 

1 The total number of allegations received concerning reactor licensees from all sources and other information 

concerning the Allegation Program appears on the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/allegations/statistics.html. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

2 

Finally, in CY 2010, the NRC reviewed the effectiveness of nine Agreement State programs’ 

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

concerns raised, thoroughly document their investigations and closeout actions, inform the 

concerned individuals of the outcomes, and protect their identity. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

3 

OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

In calendar year (CY) 2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) undertook certain 

significant activities that affected the agency’s Allegation Program and related policies and that 

warrant discussion in this report. The agency finalized enhancements to the Allegation Program 

based on lessons learned associated with the handling of allegations of inattentive security 

officers at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station and updated and issued Management 

Directive (MD) 8.8, “Management of Allegations,” dated November 15, 2010. In addition, the 

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

(Early-ADR) process for discrimination allegations. At the time this report was prepared, 

13 percent of the discrimination cases that were offered Early-ADR in CY 2010 reached 

settlement. The sections below discuss these areas in detail. 

 

Enhancements to the Allegation Process

In early CY 2010, the staff finalized its efforts to address lessons learned on the handling of 

allegations in 2007 of inattentive security officers at Peach Bottom. The NRC enhanced 

guidance in the following program areas for agency staff responsible for handling allegations: 

• allegation terminology 

• contact with allegers 

• licensee-initiated ADR processes 

• allegation requests for information (RFIs) 

• NRC assessment of licensees’ responses to RFIs 

• resident and nonresident inspector knowledge of allegation activity 

• allegation closure documentation involving a licensee’s response to an RFI 

• public discussion of specific allegation-related information 

• alleger responses after closure 

Allegation Guidance Memorandum 2008-001, “Final Guidance in Response to Lessons Learned 

from the Allegation Assessment of Inattentive Security Officers at Peach Bottom Atomic Power 

Station,” Revision 1, issued February 2, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML100431576), provides background and 

detailed information on the enhancements made. 

The NRC staff documents the policies and procedures that govern the internal NRC functions 

necessary for the agency to accomplish its regulatory mission in documents called management 

directives. MD 8.8 outlines the policies of the NRC’s Allegation Program. The NRC revised this 

directive in CY 2010 to incorporate changes in organizational responsibility and format, to 

streamline the directive and handbook so that they focus on policy matters, and to address 

Commission direction as prescribed in allegation guidance memoranda issued since the last 

revision of MD 8.8 issued in February 1999. Substantive changes include the handling of 

allegations that involve sensitive security-related information, the use of ADR practice with 

regard to allegations of discrimination, and lessons learned from the handling of allegations 

related to the inattentiveness of security officers at Peach Bottom. MD 8.8 is available on the 

NRC’s public Web site in the Electronic Reading Room.2 

 

2 See MD 8.8 at http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/idmws/DocContent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^pbntad01& 

LogonID=339390e65b995744d282d5f526a5ecc9&id=103480101.
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

4 

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 to 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, for example, by 

reviewing the number and nature of allegations concerning that site and by documenting its 

observations concerning a site’s SCWE based on interviews with the licensees’ employees and 

on reviews of pertinent documents during the baseline problem identification and resolution 

inspections. If the staff discerns that a work environment is “chilled” (i.e., not conducive to 

raising safety concerns internally), the NRC may request, in writing, information concerning the 

licensee’s SCWE. Such 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 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 19, “Notices, Instructions and 

Reports to Workers: Inspection and Investigations” 

• 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 and 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” 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

5 

In CY 2010, the NRC issued one chilling effect letter concerning the San Onofre Nuclear 

Generating Station that outlined the agency’s concern that some employees in multiple 

workgroups at San Onofre had the perception that they were 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. In March 2010, the NRC 

issued the licensee a chilling effect letter asking the licensee to provide an action plan to 

improve the SCWE at San Onofre and to specifically address how it will improve each avenue 

for raising concerns. This report discusses this issue in more detail later. 

The NRC’s ADR program includes the opportunity to use ADR early in the allegation process for 

cases of alleged discrimination before the NRC investigates the allegation. Early-ADR allows 

parties additional opportunities to resolve their differences outside the normal regulatory 

framework, and it uses a neutral third party to facilitate discussions and the timely settlement of 

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

using the communication opportunities that the Early-ADR process affords 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; an NRC investigation remains an option if 

the alleger still wants to pursue the discrimination matter. However, if the parties reach a 

settlement, the staff will not pursue an investigation or subsequent enforcement of 

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

mediation as equivalent to settlements reached under the Early-ADR program. 

The NRC made 61 Early-ADR offers in association with discrimination allegations raised in 

CY 2010; 23 cases (38 percent) resulted in agreements to mediate. Of those 23 cases, 

8 (35 percent) mediated discrimination concerns resulted in the parties reaching a mutually 

agreeable settlement. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

6 

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 midcycle and 

end-of-cycle assessments. In addition, the staff may analyze 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 

that it received, shifts in users of the Allegation Program, and the effect of the implementation of 

the Allegation Program on the workload in the regions and program offices. The following 

section discusses these trends. 

National Trends

 

National trends are of interest because they can provide the staff with general information 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 that the 

trend in the total number of 

allegations that the NRC received in 

CY 2010 declined slightly after a 

notable increase in the prior 2 years. 

The decrease does not appear to be 

the result of a general industry 

issue. 

The number of allegations 

processed by the NRC that involve 

Agreement State matters continues 

to be minimal. The total number of 

Agreement States remains at 37. 

Once the Agreement State program 

is explained to them, 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 evaluation of their concern(s). The NRC forwards such matters to the 

Agreement State and does not process them as allegations. Generally, the NRC uses 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. 

0

200

400

600

800

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

FIGURE 1 - ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED BY 

CALENDAR YEAR

Reactor Materials Agreement State
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

7 

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, the trend in the total number of concerns in all but 1 year2

 has paralleled 

the trend in total allegations (e.g., if the number of allegations decreased, the number of 

concerns decreased as well). In CY 2010, the number of allegations and concerns decreased 

in Regions I and III but increased in Regions II and IV. Region IV received approximately 

20 percent more concerns in CY 2010 largely because of the activity at one site. 

Reactor Licensee Trends

To provide further insight into areas in which the NRC is allocating resources on the followup of 

reactor-related allegations, Figure 2 depicts the 16 functional areas that represent approximately 

80 percent of the issues received nationwide in CY 2010.3

 

Figure 2 indicates that chilling effect issues comprised the largest percentage of allegation 

concerns received in CY 2010. The NRC uses the term “chilling effect” to describe a condition 

that occurs when an event, interaction, decision, or policy change results in a perception that 

the raising of safety concerns to the employer or to the NRC is being suppressed or is 

discouraged. The majority of the chilling effect concerns were received from one operating 

reactor site in Region IV. In early 2010, the NRC issued this licensee a chilling effect letter 

requesting that it provide an action plan to improve the SCWE at the site and to specifically 

address how it will improve each avenue for raising concerns. 

 

2 Although the total number of allegations in CY 2007 decreased, the number of concerns for reactor facilities 

actually increased in almost every region and program office. 

3 The agency received few concerns in the areas that are 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, fire 

protection, inservice testing, instrumentation and control, licensing, mechanical, nondestructive examination, 

radioactive waste, safeguards, and other areas. 

Chilling Effect

12%

Discrimination

11%

Security

11%

Fitness for Duty

9%

Wrongdoing

Corrective Action 8%

7%

Maintenance

6%

Health Physics

5%

Training/Quals

5%

Operations

5%

Quality Assurance

4%

Engineering

4%

Falsification

4%

Fatigue/Overtime

3%

Safety Culture

3% Access 

Authorization

3%

FIGURE 2 - REACTOR ISSUES NATIONWIDE 2010

Chilling Effect Discrimination Security

Fitness for Duty Wrongdoing Corrective Action

Maintenance Health Physics Training/Qualifications
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

8 

The actual number of security concerns continues to decrease. Conversely, the volume of 

fitness-for-duty and fatigue concerns has steadily increased over the past several years. In late 

2009, licensees began implementing the new work hour limits in Subpart I, “Managing Fatigue,” 

of 10 CFR Part 26, “Fitness for Duty Programs.” In fall CY 2010, the industry submitted a 

petition for rulemaking to address what it believes may be unintended consequences and 

confusion associated with the new rule. 

Lastly, the volume of wrongdoing allegation concerns increased approximately 15 percent in 

CY 2010. The NRC defines wrongdoing as the willful violation of regulatory requirements 

through deliberate action or a violation resulting from careless disregard of regulatory 

requirements. Wrongdoing allegation concerns involved a number of disciplines; the largest 

volume involved the area of health physics. Similarly, a number of the chilling effect concerns 

and discrimination claims also involved health physics personnel. 

Materials Licensee Trends

A comparison of the types of issues received does not produce meaningful results because 

there are many different types of materials licensees and because the activities that these 

licensees perform vary greatly. To provide insights into the areas in which the NRC focused its 

attention on materials-related allegations, Figure 3 depicts the eight types of materials licensees 

that accounted for approximately 80 percent of allegation concerns that the NRC received 

nationwide.4

 

4 The agency received few concerns about the materials licensee types that are not depicted in Figure 3, 

which represent the remaining 20 percent of the issues received. These licensee types include academic, 

casks, general licensee, irradiators, nuclear pharmacies, special nuclear material, test/research reactor, well 

logging, and other types. 

Fuel Facililty

49%

Radiography

8%

Medical

18%

Nuclear Gauges

10%

Decommisioning 

Reactor

5%

Exempt 

Distribution

4%

Decommissioning 

Materials

3%

High Level Waste

3%

FIGURE 3 - MATERIALS LICENSEE TYPES NATIONWIDE 2010

Fuel Facililty Radiography

Medical Nuclear Gauges

Decommisioning Reactor Exempt Distribution
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

9 

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

percentage (30–50 percent) of the allegation concerns that the NRC received in the materials 

area. 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. After dropping in CY 2009, 

the volume of allegations concerning the medical facilities rose again in CY 2010. 

 

Source Trends

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

allegations received in CY 2010.5

 The data indicate that the distribution of source categories 

remained consistent between CY 2006 and CY 2010—that is, employees of licensees (or 

former employees) and contractors (or former contractors) continue to be the primary sources of 

allegations. 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), the percentage of allegations from 

these sources since CY 2006 has notably remained consistently around 75 percent. 

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

5 years, licensee (or former licensee) employees are consistently the largest source. For 

reactor allegations, contractor (or former contractor) employees, anonymous allegers, and 

private citizens, in that order, are the next largest sources. Private citizens are the second most 

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

(or former contractor) employees. This trend is understandable because materials licensees 

employ fewer contract personnel and because their activities involve more direct interaction with 

the public. 

 

5 The NRC received few concerns from the news media, which represented only 1 percent of the sources. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

10 

Two of the source categories deserve some explanation. The source category “NRC” 

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

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

by the NRC Office of Investigations. The source category “licensee” denotes that a licensee 

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

to the NRC. The agency staff assigns an allegation process tracking number to such items so 

that the progress of the evaluation of the wrongdoing issue may be tracked. 

Allegation Trends for Selected Operating Reactor Sites

Trending the number and nature of allegations concerning individual reactor sites, individually 

and in the aggregate, is one method that 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 2006 and December 2010 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 assumed that anonymous allegations come from 

onsite personnel. 

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

applied the criterion that the number of onsite allegations exceeds three times the median value 

for operating reactor sites. 

In CY 2010, the median number of onsite allegations per operating reactor site was four. San 

Onofre, Units 2 and 3 (59); Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (18); and 

Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4 (15), are the three operating reactor 

sites that met this criterion. The sections below discuss each of these sites. 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3

 

During 2010, the NRC received 59 allegations from onsite sources concerning San Onofre, 

Units 2 and 3; this number of allegations represents another significant increase in allegations 

received and the highest volume received of all NRC licensees. More than 40 percent of the 

allegations were received in 

the fourth quarter, primarily 

from contract staff; this is 

consistent with a period of 

significant contractor activity 

at the site during the Unit 3 

steam generator replacement 

outage. Although contractor 

concerns increased, 

allegation traffic from 

Southern California Edison 

employees trended 

downward during the review 

period. SCWE-related trends 

are evident, including a 

notable number of 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

FIGURE 5 - SAN ONOFRE ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

11 

discrimination, chilling effect, and corrective-action-related and anonymous concerns. The 

allegations were not localized to particular departments; instead, they involved a wide range of 

disciplines. The number of discrimination concerns received continued to increase with 13 

received in CY 2010. 

In 2009, the NRC asked the licensee to perform an independent assessment of the safety 

culture. Although the licensee reported that the safety culture was sufficient at San Onofre to 

support safe plant operations, it also identified a number of corrective actions to improve the 

site’s safety culture. The NRC performed inspections to review the licensee’s efforts, and in 

early 2010, it conducted a number of focus group interview sessions involving hundreds of 

licensee personnel, as documented in the NRC inspection report dated March 2, 2010 (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 perceived that they were 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. 

 

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

No. ML100601272) asking the licensee to provide an action plan to improve the SCWE at San 

Onofre and to specifically address how it will improve each avenue for raising concerns. In 

response to the chilling effect letter, the licensee initiated a number of actions to improve the 

SCWE, including (1) supervisor and workforce training on SCWE behavior expectations and on 

available avenues to raise concerns, respectively, (2) the improvement of avenues to raise 

concerns, and (3) the enhancement of monitoring tools, including surveys, focus groups, and 

metrics. Of particular note is the licensee’s commitment to establish an SCWE review board 

and disciplinary review process for assessing disciplinary actions before their implementation to 

assess their legality and potential adverse impact on the SCWE. The licensee presented the 

status of these efforts to the NRC at a public meeting on September 16, 2010. In early 2011, 

the NRC conducted an inspection of the licensee’s actions and found that interviewed workers 

felt free to raise safety concerns using all available avenues and that management encouraged 

them to do so. Lastly, the NRC closed the substantive crosscutting issue in a problem 

identification and resolution inspection in early 2011, indicating that the sustained improvement 

in that area will likely improve the SCWE. 

The NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at San Onofre through normal inspection 

activities. The staff will look for evidence that the actions taken are effective and sustainable. 

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3

Palo Verde is sustaining improvements achieved in the SCWE since the issuance of the 

confirmatory action letter (CAL) in February 2008 that documented the followup efforts that the 

licensee committed to accomplish after the CY 2007 “Supplemental Inspection for Repetitive 

Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Yellow Inputs or One Red 

Input” inspection (ADAMS Accession No. ML080460653). 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 were 

sustainable (ADAMS Accession No. ML090790023). Substantive crosscutting issues in human 

performance and problem identification and resolution were also closed at that time. Palo 

Verde has remained in the licensee response column of the NRC Action Matrix since that time. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

12 

The number of allegations received from onsite sources at Palo Verde for each of the last 

5 years has been consistent and is at a level that requires additional discussion in this report. 

Notwithstanding, the NRC acknowledges that the size of the facility and the amount of 

significant site activity that occurs on an annual basis (usually, two refueling outages are 

conducted annually) contribute to the number of allegations that it receives on Palo Verde. 

CY 2010 was no exception, 

including refueling outages for 

Palo Verde, Units 1 and 3, both 

involving reactor vessel head 

replacement. The agency 

received allegations from onsite 

sources consistently throughout 

CY 2010, with concentrations 

consistent with periods of 

significant activity at the site (a 

Unit 1 refueling outage in 

spring 2010 and a Unit 3 

refueling outage in fall 2010). 

Concentrations of allegations 

received from a particular onsite 

source were evenly spread 

among licensee employees, 

former licensee employees, and 

contractors. Almost all of the contractor allegations were received in a relatively short time 

frame during the spring 2010 (Unit 1) refueling and vessel head replacement outage. One 

chilling effect allegation concern was substantiated in early 2010 concerning one department 

and fall 2009 outage activities; however, the NRC acknowledged that Palo Verde took effective 

corrective actions related to this matter. The number of discrimination concerns received in 

CY 2010 was relatively high (8) and was similar to the number received in CY 2009. 

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

February 2009 demonstrated an overall willingness on the part of the workers at Palo Verde to 

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

indicated that the SCWE and safety culture in general at the Palo Verde site have significantly 

improved. Much of the improvement was attributed to the new management team and its 

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

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

Those workers who were aware of the employee concerns program found that it was a viable 

option to raise concerns. The workers indicated that the improvements in the corrective action 

program were driving overall performance improvement. The staff of the employee concerns 

program made a concerted effort in CY 2009 and CY 2010 to advertise the program and 

increase workforce familiarity with the program staff. 

The NRC performed another problem identification and resolution inspection in fall 2010. The 

inspection team conducted several focus group discussions with approximately 70 licensee 

personnel. Most personnel indicated that the SCWE was healthy. The NRC noted observations 

concerning one work group, and the licensee will further evaluate these observations. The NRC 

will maintain its oversight of the SCWE in this work group and at Palo Verde in general through 

normal inspection activities. 

 

0

5

10

15

20

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

FIGURE 6 - PALO VERDE ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

13 

Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4 

The volume of onsite allegations received concerning the Turkey Point site (15) represents the 

third highest volume for reactor sites in CY 2010 and has been fairly steady over the last 

3 years. Furthermore, the concerns in this review period were received at a steady rate over all 

four quarters of the year. An analysis of the sources and subject matter of the allegations 

received in CY 2010 

indicates an SCWE-related 

trend with contractors. A 

handful of chilling effect 

concerns were received, but 

none of these were 

substantiated. The trend in 

discrimination allegations 

continues to decrease with 

no such concerns raised in 

CY 2010 and with no 

substantiated discrimination 

concerns raised in the past 

5-year review period. 

After the NRC engaged the 

licensee in early 2008 with 

regard to concerns about the 

work environment at Turkey 

Point, the licensee conducted independent assessments of the SCWE and, more broadly, the 

nuclear safety culture, and it initiated a number of actions to address identified weaknesses. 

The licensee met with the NRC in public meetings in April 2010 and January 2011 to report on 

the progress of those initiatives, including the nuclear safety culture and SCWE training for 

executives, the establishment of a nuclear safety culture oversight committee for corporate and 

site nuclear safety teams to monitor emergent issues and trends that have the potential to 

impact the SCWE or the nuclear safety culture, and three different assessments in March, June, 

and July 2010 that provided some insight into the nuclear safety culture. The results indicate 

continued challenges with regard to the perceived effectiveness of the corrective action program 

and employee concerns program, management’s allocation of resources, and outage 

processes; however, the results also indicated a notable improvement in all three areas. Of 

particular note are the actions that the licensee took to improve the effectiveness of the site’s 

employee concerns program. To address survey findings that showed a weak familiarity with 

and low levels of confidence in the employee concerns program, the office was relocated inside 

the protected area, and the employee concerns program managers conducted extensive 

outreach to site organizations. These actions increased the use of the program by worksite 

staff. The licensee also improved the process by including more face-to-face discussions with 

concerned individuals, particularly upon closure of their issues, and effectiveness reviews 

3 months after closure. The licensee is apparently focusing on the sustainability of these 

initiatives by institutionalizing changes to its processes and procedures and ensuring alignment 

within the leadership team. 

NRC inspections, including an identification and resolution inspection conducted in May 2010 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML101830300), and recent surveys conducted by the licensee indicate 

that the workforce is more knowledgeable of the various avenues available to them for raising 

nuclear safety concerns, feels personally supported by the supervisors for doing so, and knows 

0

5

10

15

20

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

FIGURE 7 - TURKEY POINT ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

14 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

FIGURE 8– WATTS BAR 2 ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed

of no one who was treated negatively for raising concerns or challenging unsafe acts. 

The NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at Turkey Point through normal inspection 

activities that particularly concern developing initiatives to improve the nuclear safety culture 

and the licensee’s monitoring efforts. 

Allegation Trends for Selected Non-Operating Reactor Sites

The NRC Web site also posts allegation statistics for certain non-operating reactor sites, 

including sites that are either under construction or were formally licensed to operate but are 

now permanently shut down (see the appendix to this report). 

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 

The volume of onsite allegations received concerning the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, site 

represented the highest volume of allegations for non-operating reactor sites and was second 

only to San Onofre, Units 2 and 3, in CY 2010. The concerns in this review period were 

received at a steady rate over the first three quarters of the year, but the concerns declined in 

the fourth quarter. An analysis of the sources and subject matter of the allegations indicates an 

SCWE-related trend with contractor concerns about chilling effects and ineffective corrective 

actions. The number of discrimination allegations also increased. 

The licensee, the Tennessee Valley 

Authority (TVA), reported that more 

than 1,500 workers were added on 

site in the last 2 years, with several 

hundred in 2010 alone, to prepare 

the plant for operations expected in 

2012. Not unexpectedly, TVA and 

its primary contractors have also 

seen a significant increase in 

concerns reported to their employee 

concerns program offices, including 

concerns similar to those received by 

the NRC. 

 

In late 2009, the NRC reached a settlement with the licensee in two cases involving apparent 

violations of the NRC’s employee protection rule at the utility’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. A 

confirmatory order outlined the settlement agreement that the parties reached through the 

NRC’s ADR process (ADAMS Accession No. ML093510993). TVA agreed to take a number of 

fleetwide actions, including the implementation of a process to review proposed adverse 

employment actions before they are taken to ensure compliance with the employee protection 

rule and the NRC’s SCWE policy. The utility also agreed to improve communications and 

training on employees’ rights to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. The NRC 

acknowledged that TVA had taken numerous actions to address the issues underlying the 

apparent violations before the parties reached a settlement agreement. In recognition of the 

actions that TVA agreed to undertake, including a requirement to perform two additional 

independent safety culture surveys before the end of 2013, the NRC agreed not to propose a 

civil penalty or to issue a notice of violation or other enforcement action in either case.6 

 

6 The postinvestigation ADR process uses a neutral mediator with no decisionmaking authority to assist the 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

15 

During this review period, the NRC inspected the licensee’s compliance with the confirmatory 

order and found that it is implementing the required actions on schedule. Furthermore, the 

agency did not identify any issues or concerns with the products under development; therefore, 

the staff is optimistic that the licensee will provide effective tools to improve the SCWE at 

Browns Ferry and other plants in the fleet, including Watts Bar, Unit 2. 

The NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at Watts Bar, Unit 2, through normal 

inspection activities. The staff will look for evidence that the actions taken are effective and 

sustainable. 

Allegation Trends for Selected Materials Sites

Finally, the NRC Web site also 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 those for fuel cycle facilities. 

Honeywell International, Inc.

The number of allegations received from onsite sources at Honeywell International, Inc. in 

CY 2010 represents a significant increase over prior years. The increase in allegations is 

directly associated with a union lockout that occurred in June 2010. Allegations were received 

mostly from licensee employees, with the large majority coming from union members who are 

currently locked out of the 

facility. The NRC has not 

received any discrimination 

concerns about Honeywell in 

the past 5 years. 

The union issues challenge 

the impact of performance 

improvement and safety 

culture initiatives, as 

Honeywell presented to the 

NRC in August 2009. Site 

management will have 

difficulty ensuring the 

achievement of the objectives of these plans in the midst of the current union unrest. Although 

the licensee has little or no problems with the SCWE in regard to the current replacement 

workforce, the improvement initiatives did not target that workforce. The reintroduction of the 

union workforce, if and when that is to occur, will challenge the licensee to reengage the union 

workforce on the previously introduced performance improvement efforts and to reestablish 

worker trust in management to resolve concerns internally. 

 NRC and its license holders in resolving differences on enforcement actions. The ADR process is often 

more effective than traditional enforcement in developing broad, long-term corrective actions; it therefore 

produces a greater benefit for employee and public safety than a one-time fine or other enforcement action 

would.

0

5

10

15

20

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

FIGURE 9- HONEYWELL ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

16 

The NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at Honeywell through normal inspection 

activities. 

Allegation Trends for Selected Vendors 

This report does not include more indepth reviews of specific 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. The report also does not provide statistics by contractor or 

vendor because publishing the number of allegations could identify an alleger. 

Agreement State Licensee Concerns 

Under the authority granted in Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the 

Act), 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 the NRC is called an Agreement State. Before 

entering into this agreement, States must first demonstrate that their regulatory programs are 

adequate to protect public health and safety and are compatible with the NRC’s program. 

Figure 10 depicts the current 37 Agreement States. 

The NRC has a statutory responsibility to periodically review the actions of the Agreement 

States to ensure that they maintain programs that are adequate to protect public health and 

safety and are compatible with the agency’s program. This authority is granted under 

Section 274j of the Act. The NRC uses the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation 

Program (IMPEP) to satisfy its statutory responsibility. More information on the NRC’s 

Agreement State program or IMPEP is available on the NRC’s Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental Management Programs Web site at http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/. 

FIGURE 10 - AGREEMENT STATES 

In CY 2010, the NRC conducted routine IMPEP reviews of nine Agreement State programs. 

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

concerns from external sources by reviewing the casework and documentation for 71 cases 

cumulatively received by all of the programs reviewed. The NRC referred 11 of the 71 cases 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

17 

reviewed to the Agreement State programs; the States received the other concerns 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. In all cases, the review 

teams noted that the States documented the results of their investigations and closeout actions, 

including notifications to the concerned individuals of the outcomes of the investigations when 

the individuals’ identities were known. The review team determined that the States that were 

reviewed in CY 2010 adequately protect the identity of any concerned individuals that request 

anonymity. In general, the results of the CY 2010 IMPEP reviews demonstrate that the 

Agreement States continue to rank response to concerns from external sources as a high 

priority in protecting public health and safety. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

18 

CONCLUSIONS

In CY 2010, the total number of allegations received declined after 2 years of notable increases. 

The decline does not appear to be the result of a general industry issue or other external factor. 

Chilling effect concerns were the largest percentage of concerns received nationwide, largely 

because of one operating site, whereas security concerns continue to decline. Fitness-for-duty 

and fatigue concerns have steadily increased over the past several years. In late 2009, 

licensees began to implement the new work hour limits in Subpart I of 10 CFR Part 26. In fall 

CY 2010, the industry submitted a petition for rulemaking to address what it believes may be 

unintended consequences and confusion associated with the new rule. Finally, the NRC 

observed a trend involving wrongdoing, discrimination, and chilling effect concerns associated 

with health physics organizations. 

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

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

will continue to monitor these sites with interest. 

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 2010 demonstrate that the 

Agreement States continue to rank response to concerns from external sources as a high 

priority in protecting public health and safety. 

Finally, the agency finalized enhancements to the allegation program based on lessons learned 

associated with the handling of allegations of inattentive security officers at Peach Bottom and 

updated and issued MD 8.8. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-1 

APPENDIX 

ALLEGATION STATISTICS FOR 

OPERATING REACTORS, NONOPERATING REACTORS, 

AND FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES

Tables 1, 2, and 3 list the number of allegations for operating reactors, nonoperating reactors, 

and fuel cycle facilities received from onsite sources from 2006 through 2010. 

Table 1 Operating Reactor Allegations Received from Onsite Sources 

SITE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Arkansas, Units 1 and 2 4 8 6 3 4

Beaver Valley, Units 1 and 2 3 1 3 1 2

Braidwood, Units 1 and 2 6 5 3 3 4

Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3 17 11 18 8 12

Brunswick, Units 1 and 2 1 3 2 5 1

Byron, Units 1 and 2 3 9 8 9 6

Callaway 3 17 2 2 3

Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 and 2 2 1 3

Catawba, Units 1 and 2 2 3 2 2

Clinton 3 1 1 4 4

Columbia Plant 3 3 1 9 4

Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 3 4 5 1 2

Cook, Units 1 and 2 7 3 5 5 3

Cooper 3 2 3 2 5

Crystal River 5 4 2 4 3

Davis-Besse 4 1 2

Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2 2 2 13 15 12

Dresden, Units 2 and 3 7 8 5 1

Duane Arnold 1 1 2 1 1

Farley, Units 1 and 2 4 5 5 6 7

Fermi 3 10 3 3 3

Fitzpatrick 3 1 2 3 2

Fort Calhoun 6 1 3 5

Ginna 2 2 4 2 4

Grand Gulf 4 8 4 2 5

Harris 14 14 1 2 5

Hatch, Units 1 and 2 1 6 7 5 8

Indian Point, Units 2 and 3 15 19 3 12 6

Kewaunee 4 1 3 

Lasalle, Units 1 and 2 1 5 1 1

Limerick, Units 1 and 2 4 1 3 14 2

Mcguire, Units 1 and 2 3 3 6

Millstone, Units 2 and 3 9 5 8 5 4

Monticello 2 1 2 2 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-2 

SITE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Nine Mile Point, Units 1 and 2 5 6 1 1

North Anna, Units 1 and 2 1 3 1 1 2

Oconee, Units 1, 2, and 3 2 2 1 1 10

Oyster Creek 4 2 6 14 4

Palisades 6 5 6 8 3

Palo Verde, Units 1, 2, and 3 16 18 17 15 18

Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 6 8 3 8 4

Perry 1 1 6 9 2

Pilgrim 6 7 8 2 5

Point Beach, Units 1 and 2 2 1 5 4 8

Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2 6 6 5 14 7

Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2 1 4 4 2 

River Bend 3 2 8 5 7

Robinson 1 1 4

Salem/Hope Creek 14 16 11 7 6

San Onofre, Units 2 and 3 15 12 18 33 59

Seabrook 4 4 10 2 1

Sequoyah, Units 1 and 2 11 13 19 6 6

South Texas, Units 1 and 2 8 6 8 12 6

St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2 15 11 6 15 12

Summer 3 2 3 1

Surry, Units 1 and 2 1 2 2 6

Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2 19 13 32 15 12

Three Mile Island 1 1 2 9 1

Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4 18 4 19 14 15

Vermont Yankee 4 3 1 2 3

Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 5 7 1 2 4

Waterford 2 2 4 3 4

Watts Bar, Unit 1 6 3 9 3 2

Wolf Creek 1 1 7 6 2

Table 2 Nonoperating Reactor Allegations Received from Onsite Sources 

SITE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fort St. Vrain 1 

Haddam Neck 1 

Humboldt Bay 1 6 4

Millstone, Unit 1 1 

Peach Bottom, Unit 1 1 

Rancho Seco, Unit 1 1 1 

San Onofre, Unit 1 2 1 2

Watts Bar, Unit 2 6 1 4 26

Yankee-Rowe 1 

Zion 1
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2010 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-3 

Table 3 Fuel Cycle Facility Allegations Received from Onsite Sources 

SITE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

American Centrifuge Plant 2 

BWX Technologies, Inc. 3 1 2 1

Framatone-Richhand 1 

Global Nuclear Fuel 1 1 6 6

Honeywell International, Inc. 1 4 7 16

Louisiana Energy Services 1 1 11 29 6

Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. 1 3 3 5 10

Paducah 3 5 3 4 4

Portsmouth 6 2 1 

Shaw Areva Mox Services 2 1 1 

Westinghouse 2 2 4 2 

Yucca Mountain 1 5 2