ALLEGATION PROGRAM 

 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT

 Calendar Year 2013

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Enforcement 

Washington, DC 20555
i

CONTENTS 

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

TRENDS IN ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................................... 3 

National Trends ................................................................................................................. 3 

Reactor Licensee Trends ...................................................................................... 4 

Materials-Licensee Trends .................................................................................... 6 

Source Trends ....................................................................................................... 7 

Allegation Trends for Selected Reactor Sites ................................................................... 8 

Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 .............................................................................. 9 

Watts Bar Unit 2 .................................................................................................. 11 

Palisades ............................................................................................................. 12 

Perry..... .............................................................................................................. 13 

Watts Bar Unit 1 .................................................................................................. 14 

Allegation Trends for Selected Materials Licensees ....................................................... 15 

Allegation Trends for Selected Vendors .......................................................................... 16 

Lake Charles Facility ........................................................................................... 16 

Trends in the Agreement States ..................................................................................... 17 

OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 19 

Chilling Effect Letters and Requests for Information Regarding Discrimination Findings19 

Allegation Dispute Resolution Process ........................................................................... 20 

CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 21 

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

FIGURES 

1 Allegations Received by Calendar Year ............................................................................ 3 

2 Reactor Issues Nationwide 2013 ...................................................................................... 5 

3 Allegations by Type of Materials Licensee Nationwide 2013 ............................................ 6 

4 Allegations by Source Category Nationwide 2013 ............................................................ 7 

5 Browns Ferry 1, 2 and 3 Allegations ................................................................................. 9 

6 Watts Bar 2 Allegations ................................................................................................... 11 

7 Palisades Allegations ...................................................................................................... 12 

8 Perry Allegations ............................................................................................................. 13 

9 Watts Bar 1 Allegations ................................................................................................... 14 

10 Lake Charles Facility Allegations .................................................................................... 16 

11 Agreement States ........................................................................................................... 17 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 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, this report discusses staff activity in calendar year (CY) 2013 involving 

the Allegation Program and related policies. Lastly, the allegation staff continues to implement 

the agency-sponsored alternative dispute-resolution (ADR) process for discrimination 

allegations (early ADR). This pre-investigation process gives an individual and his or her 

employer (or former employer) the opportunity to resolve an allegation of discrimination through 

mediation rather than fully litigate the discrimination allegation or have the NRC initiate an 

investigation. Approximately 43 percent of the CY 2013 mediated discrimination concerns 

reached settlement. 

In the CY 2009 to CY 2013 timeframe, the total number of allegations1

 received from reactor 

licensees, materials licensees, and vendors has fluctuated above and below 600 allegations per 

year, with an overall declining trend. While the total number of allegations received in 

CY 2012 (595) increased by 4 percent over CY 2011 (571), allegations received in 

CY 2013 (554) decreased by approximately 7 percent compared to CY 2012. The increases 

and decreases in allegation receipt do not appear to be the result of a general industry issue or 

other external factor. Rather, the substantive changes in the numbers of allegations received 

were based on facility-specific or vendor-specific matters. 

Each allegation can include multiple concerns. Over the past 5 years, the trend in the total 

number of concerns has generally paralleled the trend in total allegations (e.g., as the number of 

allegations has increased or decreased, the number of concerns has increased or decreased 

correspondingly). In CY 2013, coinciding with the overall decrease in allegations received, the 

total volume of allegation concerns received decreased in three of the four regional offices and 

in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Region III and the Office of New 

Reactors (NRO) experienced substantial increases in the number of concerns received. 

Sixteen percent of the allegations received in Region III in CY 2013 included four or more 

concerns, and one allegation had more than 30 concerns. However, there were no apparent 

trends in Region III in terms of allegation concerns coming from particular facilities or types of 

facilities, or as a result of an event. The increase in allegations and concerns received by NRO 

was largely attributable to discrimination and safety conscious work environment (SCWE) 

concerns raised in regard to a particular vendor. The largest percentage of concerns received 

nationwide was discrimination concerns, which decreased slightly from the number of 

discrimination concerns received in CY 2012. These concerns involved workers primarily from 

security and quality assurance functional organizations. Chilling effect concerns comprised the 

second highest percentage of concerns received nationwide and also decreased slightly in 

CY 2013 compared to CY 2012. The NRC noted trends in security, quality assurance, and 

operations organizations. The most often mentioned behaviors perceived by allegers involved 

supervisors discouraging workers from having a questioning attitude or from reporting or 

addressing concerns. While the number of security-related concerns also remained high, a 

gradual decrease in the total number of security concerns received per year over the past 

 

1 An allegation is defined as “a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy associated 

with NRC-regulated activities, the validity of which has not been established” in Management Directive 8.8, 

“Management of Allegations,” November 15, 2010.
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

2 

several years has been noted. Eighteen percent of the security concerns raised in CY 2013 

involved a specific site in Region I. 

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

analysis.2

 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 SCWE. 

Because a large volume of allegations from onsite sources may be indicative of a SCWE at risk, 

the staff selected five reactor sites and one vendor site for more in-depth review: Browns Ferry 

Units 1, 2, and 3; Watts Bar Unit 2; Palisades; Perry; Watts Bar Unit 1; and the Lake Charles 

Facility. This 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 NRC conclusions 

that the SCWE was not conducive to raising concerns, the NRC issued 2 Chilling Effect Letters 

in CY 2013 requesting actions be taken to improve the SCWE. No materials licensees were the 

subject of allegations at a level that warranted additional analysis. 

Finally, in CY 2013, the NRC reviewed the effectiveness of nine Agreement State Programs’ 

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

promptly, thoroughly document their investigations and closeout actions, inform the concerned 

individuals of the outcomes, and protect the concerned individuals’ identities.

 

2

 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 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

3 

TRENDS IN ALLEGATIONS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 allegations with 

the potential to provide insights into the environment for raising concerns (i.e., safety conscious 

work environment (SCWE)) at a given facility. Such allegations include those submitted by 

current or former licensees, contractor employees, or anonymous sources that indicate an 

unwillingness or hesitance 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) mid-cycle 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, 

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

has on the workload in the NRC regional and program offices. The following section discusses 

these trends. 

National Trends

National trends 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. They can be 

useful in developing 

budget and planning 

assumptions to support 

future agency and 

Allegation Program needs. 

Figure 1 shows that the 

NRC receives 

approximately 550 to 

600 allegations each year 

and that there has been an 

overall declining trend in 

the total number of 

allegations received from 

calendar year (CY) 2009 

through CY 2013. In 

CY 2009, the total number 

of allegations received 

increased by about 

10 percent over the total received in CY 2008, primarily because of substantive increases in 

allegations received about several reactor facilities and one fuel cycle facility. The decreases in 

allegations received in CY 2010 and again in CY 2011 were the result of large reductions in 

allegations received for two reactor facilities that experienced SCWE problems in previous 

years. As actions were implemented at these facilities in response to the identified SCWE 

problem, the number of allegations received dropped precipitously in subsequent years. While 

there was a decrease in allegations involving reactor licensees in CY 2013, allegations involving 

materials licensees increased. The number of allegations received in CY 2012 increased by 

more than 5 percent over CY 2011, while CY 2013 saw a decrease in allegations received of 

0

200

400

600

800

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

FIGURE 1 ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED BY 

CALENDAR YEAR

Reactor Materials Agreement State
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

4 

approximately 7 percent compared to CY 2012. The increases and decreases in the number of 

allegations received over the past 5 years do not appear to be the result of a general industry 

issue or other external factor. Rather, the substantive changes in the numbers of allegations 

received find basis in facility-specific or vendor-specific matters (e.g., significant outage activity, 

construction activity, security activity, work-environment issues, process/program changes, or 

company restructuring/staffing adjustments). 

The number of allegations that the NRC processed for Agreement State matters continues to be 

minimal. The total number of Agreement States remains at 37. Once the Agreement State 

Program is explained to individuals who contact the NRC with concerns about Agreement State 

licensees, most indicate a willingness to contact and be contacted directly by Agreement State 

personnel about the evaluation of their concern(s). The NRC forwards these matters to the 

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

Allegation Program 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 past decade, the trend in the total number of concerns in all but one year has paralleled the 

trend in total allegations (i.e., as the number of allegations has increased or decreased, the 

number of concerns has increased or decreased correspondingly).3

 In CY 2013, coinciding with 

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

decreased in three of the four regional offices, as well as in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards. Region III and the Office of New Reactors experienced substantial increases 

in the number of concerns received. Sixteen percent of the allegations received in Region III in 

CY 2013 included four or more concerns, and one allegation had more than 30 concerns. 

However, there were no apparent trends in Region III in terms of allegation concerns coming 

from particular facilities or types of facilities or resulting from an event. The increase in 

allegations and concerns received by NRO were largely attributable to discrimination and 

SCWE concerns raised in regard to a particular vendor. 

 

Reactor Licensee Trends

To provide further insight into areas in which the NRC is allocating resources for the evaluation 

of reactor-related allegations, Figure 2 shows the 13 functional areas that represent 

approximately 80 percent of the issues about which allegations were received nationwide in 

CY 2013.4

Figure 2 indicates that the largest percentage of concerns in allegations received nationwide 

were discrimination concerns, which increased slightly from the number of discrimination 

concerns received in CY 2012. A review of all discrimination concerns received in CY 2013 

found trends in both the source and site variables. Claims were made by almost twice as many 

 

3

 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. 

4 The agency received few allegations about concerns in areas not shown in Figure 2, which represent the 

remaining 20 percent of the issues received. These areas include chemistry, civil/structural, construction, 

criticality safety, electrical, emergency preparedness, Employee Concerns Programs, environmental, 

environmental qualifications, nondestructive evaluation, fatigue/overtime, fire protection, heating, ventilation, 

and air conditioning, in-service testing, instrumentation and control, licensing, mechanical, procurement, 

reciprocity, and safeguards. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

5 

contractor employees as licensee employees at a consistent rate throughout the calendar year. 

Workers at reactor sites and one vendor site in Regions II and III raised more discrimination 

concerns than workers in Regions I and IV. These concerns involved workers primarily from 

security and quality assurance functional organizations. There was a concentration of 

discrimination concerns raised by personnel in security organizations in calendar year 2012 as 

well. 

While the total number of chilling effect concerns in CY 2013 remained high, many of the chilling 

effect concerns raised involved only a small number of sites, including the vendor site discussed 

above. 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. Claims were 

made by an almost equal number of licensee employees as contractor employees. 

Approximately 40 percent of the concerns were received in the first quarter of the calendar year. 

Trends were noted in security, quality assurance, and operations organizations and the most 

often mentioned behaviors perceived by allegers involved supervisors discouraging workers 

from having a questioning attitude or from reporting and/or addressing concerns. 

Although the number of security-related concerns also remained high, a gradual decrease in the 

total number of security concerns received per year over the past several years has been noted. 

Eighteen percent of the security concerns raised in CY 2013 involved a specific site in Region I. 

The majority of security-related allegation concerns were received in CY 2013 from licensee 

employees. As discussed above, a large concentration of discrimination-related concerns 

involved security staff, and smaller concentrations involved inattentiveness, work schedule, 

force-on-force drills, and security post issues. 

 

There was a slight increase in the volume of wrongdoing concerns received in CY 2013. The 

NRC defines “wrongdoing” as the willful violation of regulatory requirements through deliberate 

Discrimination

17%

Chilling Effect

12%

Security

10%

Wrongdoing

9%

Health Physics

8%

Quality Assurance

7%

Engineering 

6%

Corrective Action

6%

Operations

6%

Fitness for Duty

6%

Training/

Qualifications

4%

Safety Culture

4% Falsification

4%

FIGURE 2 REACTOR ISSUES NATIONWIDE 2013

Discrimination Chilling Effect Security

Wrongdoing Health Physics Quality Assurance

Engineering Corrective Action Operations

Fitness for Duty Training/Qualifications Safety Culture

Falsification
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

6 

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 

security. 

Health Physics concerns decreased in CY 2013 after a spike in the previous year. More than 

half of the concerns involved just five licensee sites. At 43 percent, the fourth quarter of the 

calendar year saw more than double the number of allegations in comparison to any other 

quarter of the year. The most prominent concerns involved the alleged use of improperly 

calibrated equipment or inadequate procedures and the failure to follow procedures involving 

radiological controlled areas. 

Lastly, there was a notable increase in the number of concerns related to quality assurance. 

Thirty-seven percent of those related to quality issues at the vendor site previously noted that 

also saw a number of chilling effect, wrongdoing, and discrimination concerns. 

Materials Licensee Trends

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

because there are many different types of materials licensees and the activities they perform 

vary greatly. To provide insights into areas in which the NRC focused its attention on 

materials-related allegations, Figure 3 shows the seven types of materials licensees that 

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

nationwide.5

 

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

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

recovery, general licensee, high-level waste, irradiators, nuclear pharmacies, special nuclear material, well 

logging, research and development, and transportation. 

Fuel Facililty

40%

Medical

19%

Radiography

10%

Exempt Distribution

10%

Decommissioning 

Reactor

8%

Decommissioning 

Materials

8%

Nuclear Gauges

6%

FIGURE 3 ALLEGATIONS BY TYPE OF MATERIALS LICENSEE 

NATIONWIDE 2013

Fuel Facililty Medical Radiography

Exempt Distribution Decommissioning Reactor Decommissioning Materials

Nuclear Gauges
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

7 

The NRC received slightly more materials allegations in CY 2013 compared to the numbers 

received in CY 2012 and CY 2011. Since CY 2004, the number of allegations related to fuel 

cycle facilities has constituted the highest percentage (30 percent to 50 percent) of materials 

allegations. For this reason, overall fluctuations in the receipt rate of materials allegations have 

primarily been the result of changes in the receipt rate of allegations involving one or more fuel 

cycle facilities. The second highest percentage of materials-related allegations in CY 2013 

involved allegations in the medical area. Historically, the second highest percentage of 

material-related allegations has varied among medical licensees, nuclear gauge licensees, and 

radiography activities. 

Source Trends

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

allegations received in CY 2013.6

 The data indicate that the distribution of source categories 

remained consistent from CY 2009 to CY 2013. That is, employees of licensees (or former 

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

allegations. Because the total number of allegations received in CY 2013 was approximately 

7 percent lower than the number received in CY 2012, it follows that there was a notable decline 

in the number of allegations raised by licensee employees. However, the number of allegations 

raised by contractor employees increased slightly compared to the previous calendar year. 

Persons wishing to remain anonymous continued to be the third largest source of allegations 

but their numbers decreased somewhat. 

In considering those allegation sources mentioned previously that have 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 has consistently remained around 75 percent annually. Two of the source 

categories deserve some explanation. The source category “NRC Staff” designates an NRC 

 

6

 The NRC received few concerns from the 1 percent of sources not shown in Figure 4. These sources 

include the news media, state/federal agencies, and special interest groups. 

Licensee Employee

38%

Contractor Employee

29%

Licensee Identified

10%

Private Citizen

10%

Anonymous

8%

NRC Staff

5%

FIGURE 4 ALLEGATIONS BY SOURCE CATEGORY 

NATIONWIDE 2013

Licensee Employee Contractor Employee Licensee Identified

Private Citizen Anonymous NRC Staff
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

8 

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 Identified” denotes that a licensee 

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

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

evaluation progress related to the alleged wrongdoing issue may be tracked. 

Allegation Trends for Selected Reactor Sites

Trending the number and nature of allegations for specific reactor sites, individually and in the 

aggregate, is one method the NRC staff uses to monitor the SCWE at reactor sites. The 

appendix to this report provides statistics on allegations for all operating reactor sites. The NRC 

received the listed allegations during the 5-year period between January 2009 and 

December 2013 and included only allegations received from onsite sources (i.e., those that 

might indicate the health of the SCWE). Onsite sources include current or former licensee 

employees, current or former contractor employees, and anonymous allegers. For the purpose 

of this analysis, the NRC assumed that anonymous allegations came from onsite personnel. 

Because a large volume of allegations from onsite sources might indicate a SCWE at risk, the 

staff conducted a more in-depth SCWE review of certain sites with larger numbers of onsite 

allegations. Before CY 2012, the sites receiving additional review were determined by a simple 

algorithm based on the median number of allegations received at operating reactors sites over 

the calendar year (that is, sites exceeding three times the median were chosen for a more 

in-depth SCWE review). However, because sites with a larger population of employees and 

contractors (such as 3-Unit reactor sites) typically generate more allegations, normalizing the 

data helps to ensure that those sites are not disproportionally chosen for further analysis. 

Based on an NRC Office of Research study conducted in CY 2012, the Agency Allegation 

Advisor adopted the use of the following criteria to consider the varying workforce size at 

different sites, for both reactor and materials facilities, and to determine which sites warrant 

further SCWE evaluation: 

• 1-Unit reactor sites (or any site with fewer than 800 persons) with an onsite allegation 

volume greater than 2.25 times the median 

• 2-Unit reactor sites (or any site with 800 to1,000 persons) with an onsite allegation 

volume greater than 3 times the median 

• 3-Unit reactor sites (or any site with more than 1,000 persons) with an onsite allegation 

volume greater than 4.5 times the median 

The staff recognizes, and takes into consideration when applying the above criteria, that during 

times of significant site activity, the site population might increase substantially. 

For CY 2013, the median number of allegations per operating reactor site was three. Browns 

Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 (15), Watts Bar Unit 1 (7), Palisades (11), and Perry (7) are the four 

operating reactor sites that met these criteria. The criteria were also applied to one 

non-operating (pre-operating license) site, Watts Bar Unit 2 (14). The sections below discuss 

the staff’s analyses of the SCWE at each of these sites. 

 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

9 

Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3

The number of allegations received by the NRC from onsite sources regarding Browns Ferry in 

CY 2013 decreased slightly from the number received in CY 2012, although the general trend in 

allegation receipt for Browns Ferry has steadily increased over the past 5 years. Two-thirds of 

the CY 2013 allegations were received in the first half of the year coinciding with a refueling 

outage conducted at Browns Ferry Unit 2 in the spring. Allegation sources were spread evenly 

in CY 2103 among all of the 

different categories of onsite 

sources, and were received 

from varied site 

departments, with no 

concentration in a specific 

department. 

Half of all concerns received 

from Browns Ferry onsite 

sources in CY 2013 alleged 

management ineffectiveness 

or inappropriate intervention 

by management in 

corrective-action, root-cause, or operability review efforts and many of these concerns were 

accompanied by an assertion that management’s actions had chilled the work environment. 

Allegation concerns related to work environment or management effectiveness were consistent 

with employee input obtained during the licensee’s evaluations conducted in late 2012 related to 

a 2010 NRC Red finding ((Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML111290482). The NRC partially substantiated allegation concerns concluding 

that although most site personnel were not hesitant to raise safety concerns, some perceived 

there may be negative consequences should they do so. NRC followup inspection efforts 

related to the Red finding, in particular the NRC 95003 Supplemental Inspection conducted in 

CY 2013, addressed these observations. 

The 95003 inspection was conducted in three parts. The 95003 Parts 1 and 2 inspections were 

completed in 2011 and the 95003 Part 3 inspection (which included a review of the licensee’s 

third-party safety culture assessment, an NRC-graded independent safety culture assessment, 

and reviews of the current status of and licensee corrective actions related to SCWE and the 

Employee Concerns Program (ECP)) was completed in May 2013 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13234A539). The licensee’s post-Red-finding recovery plan, the Integrated 

Improvement Plan (IIP) (which included causal analyses, action plans, effectiveness review 

plans, and associated performance metrics) was reviewed in detail by the 95003 inspection 

team. The 95003 team found that the licensee’s recovery actions to address SCWE problem 

areas were adequate and that there was no indication of a current SCWE problem. The 

95003 team did identify areas of the IIP that warranted revision, specifically the areas titled 

Safety Culture, Procedure Quality, Human Performance Verification Program, and Operations 

Led Organization. While the 95003 Part 3 inspection results noted improvements overall in 

safety culture and the lack of a SCWE problem at the Browns Ferry site, the inspection team 

cautioned that implementation and completion of remaining corrective actions in the IIP were 

necessary to achieve substantial and sustained improvement. 

The most recent NRC problem identification and resolution (PI&R) inspection (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12150A219) was completed in mid-2012 and concluded at that time that 

0

10

20

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

FIGURE 5 BROWNS FERRY 1, 2, 

and 3 ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

10 

employees generally felt free to raise concerns and were aware of different avenues for raising 

concerns. While it is difficult to correlate the results of the PI&R inspection with current 

conditions at Browns Ferry because of the time elapsed, the inspection did find that a 

considerable number of anonymous concerns were being submitted to the corrective-action 

program (CAP). However, the inspection team could not attribute this to a specific SCWE 

problem. The PI&R inspection results also noted some workers perceived a lack of confidence 

in the CAP to correct issues or worker perceptions that there would be retaliation for raising 

issues. 

Also of note are the licensees’ commitments established by way of a confirmatory order issued 

in response to two substantiated discrimination concerns before CY 2009 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML093510993). In recognition of actions the licensee agreed to take, the NRC agreed not 

to propose a civil penalty nor issue a notice of violation or other enforcement action in either 

case.7

 The commitments, many to be implemented fleet wide, related to the implementation of 

multiple response activities to confirm the SCWE policy, to conduct SCWE and safety culture 

assessments, to heighten awareness of avenues for raising safety concerns, to establish a 

process to review proposed adverse personnel actions for potential negative impact on the 

SCWE, to monitor and analyze SCWE trends, and to enhance SCWE-related training. 

Required follow-up actions for many of these commitments extended into CY 2013 and NRC 

has been consistently monitoring and evaluating the licensee’s progress in implementing the 

related commitments. 

While (1) the results of the 2013 NRC 95003 Part 3 inspection, (2) continuing followup activities 

related to the December 22, 2009, confirmatory order, and (3) a PI&R inspection completed in 

mid-CY 2012 all identified improvements in safety culture and no indication of an overall SCWE 

problem at Browns Ferry, all noted that perceptions of SCWE problems continue to be raised by 

some workers. Thus, the aggressive implementation and completion of related corrective 

actions is necessary to achieve substantial and sustained improvement in both safety culture 

and SCWE. The number and nature of allegations received by the NRC from onsite sources 

regarding Browns Ferry in CY 2013 similarly indicate that perceptions of a potential work 

environment problem persist with some workers at the facility. A substantive number of the 

allegation concerns in CY 2013 alleged management ineffectiveness or inappropriate 

intervention by management in corrective-action, root-cause, or operability review efforts. 

Issues related to management actions impacting the SCWE also surfaced during the 

95003 followup activities and in the 2012 PI&R inspection. For example, the third-party safety 

culture assessment conducted as a result of Browns Ferry 1 entering Column 4 of the ROP 

Action Matrix and the December 2009 confirmatory order identified concerns about 

management not getting staff input before making changes to the station, as well as examples 

of unwillingness to report or inform supervisors of unwillingness to raise concerns. The 

95003 team review of the licensee’s Apparent Cause Evaluation (ACE) related to the SCWE 

area noted findings that management did not effectively establish a trusting relationship with 

employees and that management did not effectively use CAP to resolve issues when indicators 

and precursors of a chilled work environment were identified. 

All of these indications reinforce the need for aggressive implementation and continued 

monitoring by the licensee of the IIP corrective actions and other corrective actions it has 

 

7 The ADR process uses a neutral mediator with no decisionmaking authority to assist the NRC and its 

license holders in resolving differences regarding enforcement actions. Often, the ADR process is more 

effective than traditional enforcement in developing broad, long-term corrective actions, thus producing a 

greater benefit for employee and public safety than a one-time fine or other enforcement action. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

11 

committed to that relate to the areas of safety culture and SCWE. The NRC will continue to 

monitor the licensee’s progress in completing, monitoring, and sustaining performance related 

to these corrective actions. 

Watts Bar Unit 2

The volume of onsite allegations received concerning the Watts Bar Unit 2 site represents the 

highest for non-operating reactor sites in CY 2013 and is a significant increase over the number 

received in CY 2012; however, it is noted that the concerns were received at a declining rate 

throughout the calendar year. An 

analysis of the sources and subject 

matter of the allegations received in 

CY 2013 indicates, not surprisingly, 

that the majority of concerns came 

from current and former contractors 

and primarily involved rigging, piping, 

and other construction-related 

concerns. Three allegations of a 

chilled work environment were raised, 

one of which, for a specific 

department, was substantiated by the 

licensee in the fourth quarter. The 

licensee’s corrective actions, 

including personnel changes, appear 

to have been appropriate. There was 

an increasing trend in discrimination 

allegations as well. Of those allegations raised in CY 2013, one remains open and the 

remaining were not pursued by NRC because a prima-facie showing of potential discrimination 

was not established. For clarification, to consider a matter of potential discrimination under Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.7, “Employee Protection,” an alleger must 

present a certain pattern of facts, called a prima facie showing. Specifically, the allegation must 

initially establish that an employee has engaged in a protected activity, that an adverse 

personnel action was taken against the employee, that management knew that the employee 

had engaged in the protect activity, and that the protected activity was, in part, a reason for the 

adverse personnel action. 

Based on discussions with the licensee, the number of employee concerns raised internally also 

increased substantially in CY 2013. A spike in concerns was noted in the second and third 

quarter of the year. To increase familiarity with the program, and in response to findings that 

many on site were unsure who the ECP representative was, the ECP representative took the 

pulse of the work environment by conducting approximately 500 small face-to-face surveys in 

CY 2013. 

As discussed above in relation to the Browns Ferry site, 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. The confirmatory order that 

outlined the settlement agreement is applicable to both the licensee’s operating fleet and Watts 

Bar Unit 2. The NRC continues to inspect the licensee’s compliance with the confirmatory 

order. 

0

10

20

30

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

FIGURE 6 WATTS BAR 2 ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

12 

In summary, there was a significant increase in allegations in 2013, including an increase in 

discrimination concerns. However, the licensee saw a corresponding increase in concerns 

reported to their ECPs. Both the NRC and licensee saw the numbers decline by the fourth 

quarter. Although one chilled work environment allegation was substantiated, the licensee’s 

actions were comprehensive and appear to have been effective. The NRC will maintain its 

oversight of the SCWE at Watts Bar Unit 2 through normal inspection activities, with particular 

focus on the licensee’s efforts to complete the actions required by the 2009 confirmatory order, 

to assess impacts on the SCWE and safety culture at Watts Bar Unit 2. 

Palisades

The number of allegations received by NRC from onsite sources regarding Palisades in 

CY 2013 increased significantly from the number received the previous year. The majority of 

the concerns involved the security 

department and included technical, 

wrongdoing, falsification, training and 

qualifications, chilling effect, and 

discrimination concerns within the 

security organization. Discrimination 

concerns also significantly increased, 

and four remain open. One 

discrimination concern was withdrawn 

by the alleger and two concerned 

third-party allegations of discrimination 

which the NRC does not pursue 

because it is necessary to have the 

cooperation of the individual allegedly 

retaliated against in order to effectively 

investigate the issue. 

Four of the allegations included chilling 

effect concerns. Two associated with one department were substantiated mid-year and the 

licensee’s actions, including personnel changes, appear to have been effective. As a result of a 

fleet-wide reorganization initiative, two security supervisors were terminated late in the year, and 

this event generated a number of allegation concerns, including a chilling effect concern. 

In February 2014, the NRC completed an inspection that included focus group interviews in a 

number of organizations, management interviews, and document reviews (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML14064A569 ). The inspection team concluded that all of the organizations but one had a 

healthy SCWE. Specifically, the inspection team noted that the security organization was 

chilled in that the security officers perceived that (a) recent actions to terminate the employment 

of two supervisors was retaliation for their having raised concerns, (b) the CAP was ineffective 

at addressing their concerns, (c) security management was unresponsive to employees’ 

concerns, and (d) the ECP could not be trusted to maintain employees’ confidentiality. 

Based on discussions with the licensee, all but one of the employee concerns raised internally 

were from the security organization, and most of those involved the termination of the 

two supervisors discussed above. Although the terminations were previously reviewed by the 

licensee to ensure they did not represent a violation of the NRC’s employee-protection 

regulations, in response to the new concerns raised by a number of security officers, the 

licensee hired an independent investigator to review their actions again. The independent 

investigator confirmed that the actions taken against the supervisors were not discriminatory. 

0

5

10

15

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

FIGURE 7 PALISADES ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

13 

Nonetheless, in response to the NRC’s observations, the licensee has developed an action plan 

to further address the perceptions of the workforce. The plan includes initiatives in the areas of 

communications, training, process improvements, and monitoring activities. 

The allegation data and regional inspection observations indicate a chilled work environment in 

the security organization resulting, primarily, from the termination of the above discussed 

security supervisors and the perception by the workforce that the terminations were retaliation 

for the supervisors raising concerns. Although it appears the licensee did not recognize the 

breadth of the condition of the weakening work environment until the NRC brought it to their 

attention, they had independently engaged the above discussed third-party investigator to 

reevaluate their actions with regard to the terminations and communicated the results of that 

effort to several concerned individuals. The licensee has been taking actions to address the 

NRC’s observations but the effectiveness of these actions has not yet been determined. Based 

on these actions, the NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at Palisades through normal 

inspection activities, with a particular focus on licensee efforts to ensure that the corrective 

actions being taken in response to the chilling effect concern in the security department are 

completed and are effective at improving the SCWE. 

Perry

Allegations from onsite sources regarding Perry in CY 2013 were primarily raised by licensee 

employees and were received from varied site departments, with no concentration in a specific 

department. Most of those raised 

were received between late March 

and early June 2013, coinciding with 

the timeframe of the spring 2013 

refueling outage. Only 1 concern 

involved an alleged chilled work 

environment and it was not 

substantiated. No discrimination 

concerns about Perry were received 

in CY 2013. 

An NRC supplemental 

95002 inspection completed in 

June 2013 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13224A382) was conducted to 

(1) assess the extent of condition and 

extent of cause of Yellow and White 

inputs, (2) provide assurance that 

these were identified, and (3) provide 

assurance that the root and 

contributing causes of a more recently opened parallel White performance indicator (PI) 

inspection finding were understood. This supplemental 95002 inspection also included a review 

to determine whether safety culture components caused or significantly contributed to the 

parallel White PI inspection finding. The 95002 team found that root-cause evaluations 

performed by Perry had identified a number of safety culture components that contributed to the 

risk-significant issues that were the subject of the inspection. The 95002 supplemental 

inspection also widened the review of departmental safety culture beyond Radiation Protection, 

which had been the focus of previous White findings. Participants in focus groups conducted 

0

5

10

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

FIGURE 8 PERRY ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

14 

during the 95002 supplemental inspection expressed a common theme of satisfaction with site 

management’s current safety focus and noted recent senior management changes and 

program/process changes as evidence of a safety commitment. Focus group participants 

indicated that they were comfortable raising concerns without fear of retaliation and were aware 

of the various avenues by which concerns could be raised, including the ECP. Radiation 

protection workers specifically provided positive comments about new management in the 

department who were promoting the raising of concerns and improved communications within 

the department. 

The most recent NRC look at SCWE at the Perry site was accomplished through the biennial 

PI&R inspection completed in late November 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14003A186). 

The PI&R team inspectors conducted impromptu interviews with plant personnel as a follow-on 

to the results of the 95002 supplemental inspection. The interview results reinforced the 

conclusion from the 95002 inspection that workers at Perry feel free to raise concerns without 

fear of retaliation. Individuals interviewed were aware that in addition to the corrective-action 

program, concerns could be raised to their supervisor, the ECP, or the NRC. Several 

comments also noted improved communication from senior leadership at Perry. 

In summary, the number and nature of allegations received regarding the site in CY 2013 do not 

indicate a SCWE problem at the site. The NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at Perry 

through normal inspection activities. 

Watts Bar Unit 1

The number of allegations received by the NRC from onsite sources regarding Watts Bar Unit 1 

in CY 2013 decreased significantly from the number received in the previous year. An analysis 

of the data indicates no strong trends with regard to functional organizations; however, it is 

noted that almost half the allegations 

included chilling effect concerns in two 

different departments. One was 

substantiated and one is still open. 

Regarding the substantiated chilling 

effect concern, in a response to the 

NRC’s request for information, the 

licensee conducted an evaluation of the 

work environment in the security 

organization and concluded, in the first 

half of the calendar year, that 

employees were not free to raise 

nuclear safety/security concerns without 

fear of retaliation. The licensee initiated 

corrective actions, including 

communicating the results of their 

evaluation to the affected workers; increasing senior management presence in the field and at 

shift meetings, and coaching security management. 

The allegation receipt rate declined throughout the calendar year. The allegations were 

received primarily from licensee employees. There were a number of allegations from 

anonymous sources, however, one of which was the chilling effect concern that was 

substantiated. The number of discrimination concerns received by NRC decreased in 2013 as 

0

10

20

30

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

FIGURE 9 WATTS BAR 1 ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

15 

well. Only one was received and it was not investigated by the NRC because a prima-facie 

showing of potential discrimination was not established. 

The last biennial PI&R inspection at Watts Bar Unit 1 was completed in February 2013 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13098B025). The inspection found that (1) licensee management 

emphasized to their employees the importance of reporting concerns, (2) reporting avenues are 

readily accessible, and (3) the workforce was willing to raise nuclear safety concerns. 

According to discussions with the licensee management, employee concerns raised internally 

increased in the second half of the year. This increase corresponds to the placement of a 

permanent Employee Concerns Program representative onsite in June 2013. The total number 

of nuclear safety and quality concerns were fairly representative of a number of functional 

areas. According to the licensee, 3 concerns were raised about chilled work environments, 

each of them was partially substantiated, and corrective actions were taken. In 2012, after the 

licensee conducted an analysis which showed that allegation numbers had increased while 

Employee Concerns Program concerns had decreased for three consecutive years, the licensee 

took actions to improve the effectiveness of that program. The increasing use of the program at 

Watts Bar Unit 1 (and a corresponding decrease in allegations to the NRC) seems to indicate 

that those actions were successful to some degree. 

As previously discussed, in relation to the Browns Ferry and Watts Bar Unit 2 sites, 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. The confirmatory 

order that outlined the settlement agreement is applicable to Watts Bar Unit 1 as well. The NRC 

continues to inspect the licensee’s compliance with the confirmatory order. 

In summary, allegations significantly declined in 2013, including allegations with discrimination 

concerns. Although a number of the allegations included chilling effect concerns, the only one 

substantiated to date was effectively addressed by the licensee. The work-environment 

concerns in the security department were addressed in the first half of the calendar year; since 

then, few allegations have been received concerning Watts Bar Unit 1, while the licensee’s 

employee concerns trended up throughout the year. The NRC will maintain its oversight of the 

SCWE at Watts Bar Unit 1 through normal inspection activities, with a particular focus on 

verifying that the licensee continues to take the actions required of it by the 2009 confirmatory 

order. 

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 and the smaller workforce sizes 

associated with the overwhelming majority of other smaller materials licensees, the potential for 

a licensee or contractor to identify an alleger is increased. For this reason, tables of statistics 

on allegations about materials licensees other than fuel cycle facilities have not been provided 

publicly or included in this report. None of the materials licensees or fuel cycle facilities 

received a sufficient number of allegations to discern a trend or pattern or to provide insights 

into the SCWE. Therefore, this report does not include more in-depth reviews of specific 

materials licensees. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

16 

0

10

20

30

40

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

FIGURE 10 LAKE CHARLES FACILITY 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received

Allegation Trends for Selected Vendors 

Neither this report nor the NRC Web site provides statistics by contractor or vendor for reasons 

similar to those outlined above for materials licensees. Nonetheless, the allegation trends of 

one vendor warrant discussion in this report. 

Lake Charles Facility

The number of allegations received by the NRC from onsite sources regarding the Chicago 

Bridge and Iron (CB&I) Fabrication Lake Charles facility (formerly known as, Shaw Modular 

Solutions (SMS)) in CY 2013 increased significantly from the number received in CY 2012. The 

allegations were roughly spread throughout the quality assurance and operations areas. There 

were 11 chilling effect allegation concerns received in the quality assurance and operations 

areas and 20 discrimination allegation concerns received in CY 2013. Of these discrimination 

concerns, 11 remain open either as part of the ADR process or an OI investigation. 

On April 18, 2013, the NRC issued a Chilling Effect Letter (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13092A077) notifying the vendor that the NRC had concluded, based on inspection 

observations and investigations into allegations received in CY 2012 and the first quarter of 

CY 2013, that portions of the Lake Charles facility workforce, especially employees with nuclear 

and quality control backgrounds, perceived that they were not free to raise safety concerns, that 

they believed they would be 

retaliated against for raising 

such concerns, and that 

management had not been 

effective in assuring 

employees that they could 

raise safety issues without 

fear of retaliation. 

 

Furthermore, the NRC issued 

a confirmatory order to 

Chicago Bridge and Iron on 

September 16, 2013, as a 

result of a successful 

post-investigation ADR session with the agency (ADAMS Accession No. ML13231A271). The 

confirmatory order represents a settlement agreement between the NRC and the vendor 

concerning a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties issued by the NRC 

on April 18, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13050A597). The violation involved employment 

discrimination in violation of 10 CFR 52.5, “Employee Protection.” 

In response to both the Chilling Effect Letter and confirmatory order, Chicago Bridge and Iron 

committed to taking a number of actions, including reinforcing through communications its 

strategy and commitment to improve its nuclear safety culture and SCWE; updating its related 

policies to ensure their consistency with NRC and industry guidance; developing and revising 

the company’s employee-protection, safety culture, and SCWE training; improving or developing 

a number of safety culture processes, such as the Employee Concerns Program and safety 

culture monitoring tools; and performing comprehensive nuclear safety culture assessments of 

all CB&I nuclear business entities. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

17 

In February 2014, a vendor inspection was conducted that included a review of the safety 

culture and the actions taken in response to the Chilling Effect Letter and confirmatory order. 

Overall, the SCWE has improved since previous inspections. Most personnel stated that they 

were willing to raise safety concerns and were aware of the various avenues available for 

raising safety concerns. Based on the results of the last vendor inspection and correspondence 

between the NRC and CB&I, it appears the actions taken by the vendor have begun to improve 

the SCWE at the Lake Charles facility. The NRC will continue to monitor the SCWE and inspect 

actions required by the confirmatory order. 

Trends in the Agreement States

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 material, source 

material, 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 11 shows the 37 Agreement States. 

FIGURE 11 AGREEMENT STATES 

Agreement States (37)

NRC States (13)

AK

HI

CA

OR

WA

NV

ID

AZ NM

UT

CO

WY

MT ND

SD

NE

KS

OK

TX LA

AR

MO

IA

MN

WI

IL

MS AL GA

FL

SC

NC

TN

KY

IN

MI

OH

VA WV

PA

NY

ME

MD

DE

NJ

CT

MA

VT NH

RI
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

18 

The NRC has 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 

and IMPEP is available on the Web site for NRC’s Office of Federal and State Materials and 

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

In CY 2013, the NRC conducted routine IMPEP reviews of 9 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 66 cases 

cumulatively received by all of the programs reviewed. The NRC referred 23 of the 66 cases 

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, which included notifying concerned individuals of the outcomes of the 

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

States reviewed in CY 2013 adequately protected the identity of any concerned individual who 

requested anonymity. In general, the results of the CY 2013 IMPEP reviews demonstrate that 

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

priority in protecting public health and safety. 

 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

19 

OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Activities in CY 2013 in areas closely related to the Allegation Program are discussed below. 

The NRC issued four Chilling Effect Letters in CY 2013 related to either a finding of 

discrimination or NRC observations about the SCWE at regulated entities. At the time this 

report was prepared, approximately 16 percent of the discrimination cases offered 

agency-sponsored alternative dispute resolution (early ADR) in CY 2013 reached settlement. 

The sections below discuss these areas in more detail. 

 

Chilling Effect Letters and Requests for Information Regarding Discrimination Findings

The staff gathers insights into the SCWE at a particular site in several ways (e.g., by reviewing 

the number and nature of allegations concerning that site and through documented 

observations based on interviews with the licensees’ employees and the review 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) or there is a finding of discrimination that has the potential to chill the work 

environment, the NRC may request, in writing, information about the licensee’s SCWE. Such 

letters have historically been referred to as Chilling Effect Letters (CELs). 

In early CY 2014, the NRC revised its guidance to the staff concerning one historical type of 

CEL. When an initial U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) investigation related to a discrimination 

concern raised under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA) is 

substantiated, the NRC staff considers how the DOL finding will affect the SCWE. In particular, 

the staff needs to ensure that awareness in the workplace of DOL’s discrimination finding has 

not created a chilling effect (i.e., has not discouraged other employees and contractors from 

raising safety concerns). To that end, the staff issues a request for information to the regulated 

entity. Such letters inform the licensee or contractor of the NRC’s knowledge of the finding and 

interest in understanding the licensee’s or contractor’s position and any actions that have been 

taken or planned to assess and mitigate the potential chilling effect. It also informs the 

workforce of the NRC’s interest in the state of the environment for raising concerns at the site or 

facility. At the time such letters are issued, the NRC has confirmed neither that enforcement is 

necessary nor that the work environment is chilled. Rather, the information is sought to help 

inform the NRC’s potential evaluation efforts going forward. The NRC Enforcement Manual 

provides detailed guidance on considering the issuance of such requests for information in 

these circumstances. (The NRC Enforcement Manual appears on the agency’s public Web site 

at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/guidance.html#manual.) Changes in 

early CY 2014 were made to this guidance and these types of letters are no longer referred to 

as CELs to more clearly distinguish them from letters informing the licensee or contractor of the 

NRC’s conclusion that the work environment is chilled. 

For situations involving indications of a chilled work environment that do not involve a finding of 

discrimination, such as when inspection observations or allegation insights result in the NRC’s 

conclusion that a licensee or contractor’s work environment is chilled and corrective actions are 

warranted, staff guidance can be found in Allegation Guidance Memorandum 2012-001, “NRC 

Chilling Effect Letters,” dated March 9, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12025A055). This 

guidance outlines the factors that are considered when deciding to issue a CEL, the process 

used to make that determination, the contents of the CEL, the evaluation of a CEL response, 

and the closure of the CEL. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

20 

In April 2013, a CEL was issued to Chicago Bridge and Iron (Shaw Modular Solutions) citing the 

NRC’s conclusion that the SCWE at the Lake Charles, LA, site was chilled and requesting 

information regarding the vendor’s plans to address those concerns (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13092A077). In July 2013, a request for information was issued to Public Service 

Electric and Gas (PSEG) Nuclear when NRC became aware, from a newspaper article, of a jury 

verdict in U.S. District Court in Camden, NJ, in favor of a contractor employee at the Salem and 

Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations (ADAMS Accession No. ML13207A078). While the 

complaint was not filed with DOL under ERA Section 211 or with the NRC, the federal court 

verdict was of concern to the NRC because the retaliatory action might have had a chilling effect 

on the willingness of PSEG employees and its contractors to raise safety concerns to PSEG, its 

contractors, or the NRC. CELs were also issued in August 2013 to a licensee and its contractor 

(Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Company and Enercon) after a positive DOL discrimination 

finding (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13233A208 and ML13233A212, respectively). The letter to 

the licensee also included the NRC’s concerns related to inspection observations that identified 

a hesitance to raise safety concerns among Quality Assurance personnel at the facility. The 

July 2013 letter to PSEG and the August 2013 letter to Enercon were requests for information 

about the discrimination findings and did not represent NRC’s conclusions with regard to the 

health of the SCWE. Based on the revised guidance in the Enforcement Manual, such letters 

would not be referred to as CELs in the future. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Process 

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 

provides 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 provides, can 

stem the inherent damage such disputes can inflict on the SCWE more quickly than an 

investigation. At any time, either party can exit the ADR process, at which point an NRC 

investigation remains an option if the alleger is still interested in pursuing the discrimination 

matter. Should such an investigation and resulting enforcement panel conclude that 

enforcement is warranted, the NRC and licensee may engage in what the agency refers to as 

“Post-Investigation ADR.” Additional information on that process can be found by going to 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr/post-investigation.html on the NRC’s 

public Web site. If during early ADR, however, the parties reach a settlement, the staff will not 

pursue an investigation or subsequent enforcement regarding the discrimination finding. The 

NRC also considers settlements resulting from licensee-initiated mediation as equivalent to 

settlements reached under the Early ADR Program. 

At the time this report was prepared, 30 of the early ADR offers made by the NRC in association 

with discrimination allegations raised in CY 2013 resulted in agreements to mediate. Of those 

30 cases, 13 (43 percent) mediated discrimination concerns resulted in the parties reaching a 

mutually agreeable settlement. The remaining 17 cases were either still being mediated at the 

time of this report or failed to result in a settlement and the alleger requested an NRC 

investigation. At the time this report was prepared, 1 investigation has been closed as 

unsubstantiated and 34 are still continuing. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

21 

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an overall declining trend in the total number of allegations received from 

CY 2009 through CY 2013. The decreases do not appear to be the result of a general industry 

issue or other external factor, because the reasons for the substantive changes in the numbers 

of allegations received regarding these facilities were based on plant-specific matters. In 

CY 2013, coinciding with the overall decrease in allegations received, the total volume of 

allegation concerns received decreased in three of the four regional offices, as well as in the 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Region III and the Office of New Reactors 

experienced substantial increases in the number of concerns received. Sixteen percent of the 

allegations received in Region III in CY 2013 included four or more concerns, and one allegation 

contained more than 30 concerns. However, there were no apparent trends in Region III in 

terms of allegation concerns coming from particular facilities or types of facilities or resulting 

from an event. The increases in allegations and concerns received by NRO were largely 

attributable to discrimination and SCWE concerns raised in regard to a particular vendor. The 

largest percentage of concerns received nationwide were discrimination concerns, which 

increased slightly from the number of discrimination concerns received in CY 2012. Chilling 

effect concerns comprised the second highest percentage of concerns received nationwide and 

decreased slightly in CY 2013 compared to CY 2012. While the number of security-related 

concerns also remained high, a gradual decrease in the total number of security concerns 

received per year over the past several years has been noted. More than 18 percent of the 

security concerns raised in CY 2013 involved a specific site in Region I. 

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

has taken action to engage licensees about their work environment when this has been 

warranted and will continue to monitor these sites with interest. 

The agency’s Early ADR process resulted in 13 cases of discrimination allegations being settled 

successfully between the parties before the start of an NRC investigation. The staff believes 

that voluntary dispute resolution by the parties using the communication opportunities afforded 

in Early ADR can stem the inherent damage such disputes can have on the SCWE more quickly 

than an investigation could. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-1

APPENDIX 

ALLEGATION STATISTICS FOR 

OPERATING REACTORS AND FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES

OPERATING REACTOR ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED FROM ONSITE SOURCES 

Site 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

ARKANSAS 1 & 2 3 4 3 6 1

BEAVER VALLEY 1 & 2 1 2 1 1 1

BRAIDWOOD 1 & 2 3 4 2 2 2

BROWNS FERRY 1, 2, & 3 8 12 11 16 15

BRUNSWICK 1 & 2 5 1 3 6 1

BYRON 1 & 2 9 6 3 3 0

CALLAWAY 2 3 1 5 6

CALVERT CLIFFS 1 & 2 3 1 1 3

CATAWBA 1 & 2 2 2 3 3 1

CLINTON 4 4 1 1 1

COLUMBIA PLANT 9 4 5 1 5

COMANCHE PEAK 1 & 2 1 2 3 2 3

COOK 1 & 2 5 3 5 0 5

COOPER 2 5 5 3 4

DAVIS-BESSE 0 2 4 0 5

DIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 15 12 9 5 6

DRESDEN 2 & 3 5 1 2 0 2

DUANE ARNOLD 1 1 1 2 2

FARLEY 1 & 2 6 7 12 9 6

FERMI 3 3 3 1 0

FITZPATRICK 3 2 2 2 0

FORT CALHOUN 4 5 4 3 5

GINNA 2 4 10 4 0

GRAND GULF 2 5 3 10 2

HARRIS 2 5 3 6 2

HATCH 1 & 2 5 8 4 5 3

INDIAN POINT 2 & 3 11 6 15 17 13

LASALLE 1 & 2 0 1 1 0 2

LIMERICK 1 & 2 14 2 3 5 1

MCGUIRE 1 & 2 3 6 5 1 3

MILLSTONE 2 & 3 5 4 11 9 4

MONTICELLO 2 0 3 2 1

NINE MILE POINT 1 & 2 0 1 5 2 0

NORTH ANNA 1 & 2 1 2 1 1 1

OCONEE 1, 2, & 3 1 11 4 6 3

OYSTER CREEK 14 4 0 3 1

PALISADES 8 3 5 5 11

PALO VERDE 1, 2, & 3 15 16 8 7 10

PEACH BOTTOM 2 & 3 8 4 3 1 7

PERRY 9 2 5 10 7
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-2

Site 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

PILGRIM 1 5 5 2 4

POINT BEACH 1 & 2 4 8 6 4 2

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 & 2 14 8 7 9 11

QUAD CITIES 1 & 2 2 0 1 1 3

RIVER BEND 5 7 0 0 3

ROBINSON 0 4 6 4 4

SALEM/HOPE CREEK 7 6 4 5 12

SEABROOK 2 1 7 5 4

SEQUOYAH 1 & 2 6 6 0 19 5

SOUTH TEXAS 1 & 2 12 5 5 8 5

ST. LUCIE 1 & 2 15 12 16 7 7

SUMMER 3 1 4 1 0

SURRY 1 & 2 2 6 4 1 1

SUSQUEHANNA 1 & 2 15 12 22 21 9

THREE MILE ISLAND 9 1 3 0 0

TURKEY POINT 3 & 4 14 15 17 17 5

VERMONT YANKEE 2 3 2 0 1

VOGTLE 1 & 2 2 4 12 5 3

WATERFORD 3 4 2 4 4

WATTS BAR 1 3 2 5 21 7

WOLF CREEK 6 2 4 5 6
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2013 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-3

FUEL CYCLE FACILITY ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED FROM ONSITE SOURCES 

Site 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PLANT 0 0 1 1 0

BWX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2 1 0 0 1

FRAMATOME - RICHLAND 0 0 0 1 0

GE-HITACHI GLOBAL LASER ENR. 1 0 0 1 0

GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL 6 6 5 5 2

HONEYWELL 7 17 3 6 6

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES 29 12 6 2 8

NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. 5 10 4 8 6

PADUCAH 4 4 6 2 2

SHAW AREVA MOX SERVICES 1 0 4 11 4

WESTINGHOUSE 2 0 1 0 0

YUCCA MOUNTAIN 5 2 0 0 0