ALLEGATION PROGRAM 

 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT

 Calendar Year 2015

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 

Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3 .................................................................................. 9 

Salem Units 1 and 2/Hope Creek Unit 1.............................................................. 10 

Watts Bar Unit 1 .................................................................................................. 11 

Wolf Creek Unit 1 ................................................................................................ 12 

Pilgrim Unit 1 ....................................................................................................... 13 

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 ............................................................................................ 15 

Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3 ........................................................................... 16 

Allegation Trends for Selected Materials Licensees ....................................................... 18 

Allegation Trends for Selected Vendors .......................................................................... 18 

CB&I Lake Charles .............................................................................................. 18 

CB&I Charlotte .................................................................................................... 19 

Trends in the Agreement States ..................................................................................... 20 

OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 22 

Requests for Information Regarding Discrimination Findings ......................................... 22 

Chilling Effect Letters ...................................................................................................... 22 

Early Alternative Dispute Resolution Process ................................................................. 22 

CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 24 

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

FIGURES 

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

2 Reactor Concerns Nationwide 2015 ................................................................................. 5 

3 Allegations by Type of Materials Licensee Nationwide 2015 ............................................ 6 

4 Allegations by Source Category Nationwide 2015 ............................................................ 7 

5 Palo Verde Allegations ...................................................................................................... 9 

6 Salem/Hope Creek Allegations ....................................................................................... 10 

7 Watts Bar 1 Allegations ................................................................................................... 11 

8 Wolf Creek Allegations .................................................................................................... 12 

9 Pilgrim Allegations .......................................................................................................... 13 

10 Vogtle 3 and 4 Allegations .............................................................................................. 15

11 VC Summer 2 and 3 Allegations ..................................................................................... 16 

12 CB&I Lake Charles ......................................................................................................... 18 

13 CB&I Charlotte ................................................................................................................ 20 

14 Agreement States .......................................................................................................... 21 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

Allegations,” dated January 29, 2016, 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 2015 involving the 

Allegation Program and related policies. The allegation staff continues to facilitate the 

agency-sponsored pre-investigation (early) Alternative Dispute Resolution process for 

discrimination allegations. The NRC believes this pre-investigation process is beneficial to the 

environment for raising concerns and gives an individual and his or her employer (or former 

employer) the opportunity to resolve an allegation of discrimination through mediation, 

potentially avoiding lengthy litigation and/or an NRC investigation. About 41 percent of the 2015 

mediated discrimination concerns reached settlement. 

In the 2011 to 2015 timeframe, the total number of allegations1 received from reactor licensees, 

materials licensees, and vendors has fluctuated above and below 500 allegations per year, with 

an overall slightly declining trend. The total number of allegations received in 2015 increased by 

15 percent over 2014, in large part because of concerns raised about construction site activities 

associated with new reactors. 

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 (i.e., as the number of 

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

correspondingly). In 2015, coinciding with the overall increase in allegations received, the total 

volume of allegation concerns received increased as well. More specifically, the number of 

allegations received in three of the four regional offices increased. In addition, in Region II, with 

oversight responsibility for the new reactors under construction there was a 63-percent increase 

in allegation concerns received. The largest percentage of concerns in allegations received 

nationwide was discrimination concerns, which increased from the number received in 2014. 

Contractor employees, both current and former, made a significant number of these concerns at 

reactor and vendor sites associated with new reactor construction. Chilling effect concerns 

constituted the second highest percentage of concerns received nationwide and also increased 

in 2015. About 40 percent of the chilling effect concerns involved sites associated with the 

construction of new reactors, including the related vendor sites. The most often mentioned 

behaviors perceived by allegers to cause the chilling effect involved negative treatment, such as 

harassment or discrimination, after the individual or others raised a concern; supervisors that 

discouraged using the Corrective Action Program to document concerns; and verbally abusive 

comments about delays caused by concerns. 

For some in the regulated community, 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 

 

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,” January 29, 2016. 

2 The total number of allegations received concerning reactor and fuel facility 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 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

2 

environment for raising concerns. Because a large volume of allegations from onsite sources 

could be indicative of a chilled work environment, the staff selected five operating reactor sites, 

two reactor sites under construction, and two vendor sites for more in-depth review: 

• Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3 

• Salem Units 1 and 2/Hope Creek Unit 1 

• Watts Bar Unit 1 

• Wolf Creek 

• Pilgrim 

• Vogtle Units 3 and 4 

• Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3 

• CB&I Lake Charles 

• CB&I Charlotte 

This report discusses allegation trends at each of these sites. In summary, the trends for five of 

the sites did not suggest a concern about the environment for raising concerns. The others, 

however, did indicate the environment was chilled, including one instance that resulted in the 

issuance by the NRC of a chilling effect letter, a regulatory tool used by the NRC to notify the 

licensee of the NRC’s concern about the environment for raising concerns and to request 

corrective actions. The associated employers in each case are taking actions to address the 

weaknesses and the NRC is closely monitoring the ongoing activities. 

Finally, in 2015, the NRC reviewed the effectiveness of eight 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. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 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. 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 offer 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 a hesitance to 

raise safety concerns internally. For power reactor facilities, the staff analyzes recent allegation 

activity in support of the reactor oversight process (ROP) end-of-cycle assessments. In addition, 

the staff might analyze a particular site or licensee whenever allegations or inspection findings 

indicate that such an analysis is warranted. 

The staff also reviews 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 inform the staff about the effect of external factors, plant events, and industry 

efforts to improve the SCWE at NRC-licensed facilities. They can help develop budget and 

planning assumptions to 

support future agency and 

Allegation Program needs. 

Figure 1 shows that the 

NRC receives about 500 to 

600 allegations each year 

and that there has been a 

slightly declining trend in 

the total number of 

allegations received from 

calendar year 2011 

through 2015. There was a 

slight increase in the 

number of allegations 

received in 2012, however, 

the next 2 years the total 

number of allegations 

trended down. Although 

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

number of materials licensees increased. The decrease in allegations involving reactor 

licensees continued in 2014, and those involving materials decreased as well. Over the previous 

5-year period the number of allegations decreased approximately 25 percent, suggesting 

stronger environments for raising concerns at regulated entities. However, in 2015, despite 

receiving fewer materials-related allegations, that trend reversed itself in large part due to 

concerns raised about construction site activities associated with new reactors. 

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

minimal. Under the authority granted in Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, the NRC may relinquish its authority to regulate certain byproduct material, source 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 1 ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED BY

CALENDAR YEAR

Reactor Materials Agreement State
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

4 

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. 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 concerns. 

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 

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

Typically, each allegation represents two to three concerns. Over the previous 5 years, the trend 

in the total number of concerns 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). In 2015, coinciding with the overall increase in allegations received, the total 

volume of allegation concerns received increased as well. More specifically, the number of 

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

Reactors and Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards increased. Region II received 

the most allegation concerns and saw a 63 percent increase over last year’s concern count, 

largely attributable to concerns raised in regard to the new reactor construction sites. Region III, 

on the other hand, received 27 percent fewer allegation concerns in 2015 than they did in 2014 

and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Office of Nuclear Security and Incident 

Response related allegations also declined, although not as significantly. 

 

Reactor Licensee Trends 

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

reactor-related allegations, Figure 2 shows the 14 functional areas that represent approximately 

80 percent of the issues about which allegations were received nationwide in 2015.3

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

discrimination concerns, which increased by almost 50 percent from the number of 

discrimination concerns received in 2014. A review of all discrimination concerns received in 

2015 found trends in both the source and site variables. Two-thirds of the claims were made by 

contractor employees, both current and former. Workers at reactor and vendor sites associated 

with the new construction sites raised more discrimination concerns than workers at operating 

reactor sites. These concerns involved workers primarily in the construction and maintenance 

functional organizations. Lessor trends at operating sites were identified in Radiation Protection 

and Security organizations. Layoffs and terminations were alleged to be the adverse action 

taken against the worker in the majority of the concerns received; however, there were also a 

number of complaints alleging negative performance appraisals and failures to hire resulting 

from workers raising safety concerns. At the time this report was prepared, none of the 

discrimination concerns raised in 2015 had yet been substantiated; however, close to 

35 percent were still open and either being investigated or within the NRC’s early Alternative 

 

3 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 and structural; 

construction; cyber security; electrical; emergency preparedness; employee concerns programs; 

environmental qualifications; fatigue and overtime; fire protection; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; 

industrial safety; inservice testing; instrumentation and control; licensing; mechanical; nondestructive 

evaluation; procurement; reciprocity; safeguards; and safety culture. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

5 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) process. About 41 percent of the 2015 mediated discrimination 

concerns reached settlement. Finally, approximately 27 percent of allegers filing a discrimination 

concern that were offered either early ADR or an investigation withdrew their complaint before a 

conclusion was reached by the agency. 

The total number of chilling effect concerns in 2015 increased significantly. 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. Similar to trends in 2014, last year about 

40 percent of the chilling effect concerns involved the environment for raising concerns at the 

sites associated with the construction of new reactors, including the related vendor sites. Most 

were raised by contractor employees and, not surprisingly, most involved work environments in 

the construction and quality assurance departments, although there was also a trend noted in 

security departments at operating reactors. The most often mentioned behaviors alleged by 

individuals to cause the chilling effect involved negative treatment, such as harassment or 

discrimination, after the concerned individual or others raised a concern; supervisors who 

discourage using the Corrective Action Program to document concerns; or verbally abusive 

comments made by supervisors about delays caused by concerns. About 16 percent of chilling 

effect allegation concerns were substantiated in 2015, although this includes substantiation of 

multiple allegations regarding the same chilled environment at two new reactor 

construction sites. 

A large percentage of allegations containing quality assurance-related concerns involved 

contractor activities associated with new reactors under construction. Twenty percent involved 

welding inspection and verification or training and qualification of the welders. 

Discrimination

Chilling Effect

Quality Assurance

Engineering

Security

Fitness for Duty

Wrongdoing

Operations

Access Authorization

Corrective Action

Maintenance

Falsification

Training 

/Qualifications

Health Physics

FIGURE 2 REACTOR CONCERNS NATIONWIDE 2015
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

6 

Regarding the engineering-related concerns received in 2015, 33 percent were received in one 

allegation about one operating reactor site. No other trends were identified in the other 

allegation concerns in the engineering discipline. 

The number of security-related concerns decreased by about 32 percent in 2015. Most 

security-related concerns were from onsite sources, but otherwise, no trends were identified in 

the types of concerns raised. 

The number of fitness-for-duty concerns increased by 53 percent in 2015. The majority were 

drug- or alcohol-related, including concerns about substance abuse, the licensee’s drug testing 

policy, and concerns about attempted fitness-for-duty test subversion. 

Materials Licensee Trends 

A comparison of the types of materials 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 offer insights into areas in which the NRC focused its 

attention on materials-related allegations, Figure 3 shows the six types of materials licensees 

that accounted for about 80 percent of allegation concerns that the NRC received nationwide.4

The NRC received about 20 percent fewer materials allegations in 2015 compared to the 

numbers received in the previous year. Since 2004, the number of allegations related to fuel 

cycle facilities has constituted the highest percentage (30 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 2015 involved 

 

4 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, casks, 

irradiators, transportation, pharmacies, and well logging. 

Fuel Facililty

Nuclear Gauges Medical

Exempt Distribution

Radiography

Decommissioning 

Reactor

FIGURE 3 ALLEGATIONS BY TYPE OF MATERIALS

LICENSEE NATIONWIDE 2015
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

7 

allegations in the nuclear gauges area. A nuclear gauge is a tool used to measure thickness, 

density, or the make-up of a wide variety of material or surfaces. It consists of a radiation source 

that emits a cloud of particles and a sensor that counts the received particles that are either 

reflected by the test material or pass through it. By calculating the percentage of particles that 

return to the sensor, the gauge can be calibrated to measure the density and inner structure of 

the test material. 

Source Trends 

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

received in 2015.5 The data indicate that the distribution of source categories remained 

consistent from 2011 to 2015. That is, employees of licensees (or former employees) and 

contractors (or former contractors) continue to be the primary sources of allegations. In 2015, 

the number of contractor employees raising allegations increased by about 50 percent reflecting 

the large contractor numbers at the new reactor construction sites. Persons wishing to remain 

anonymous continued to be the third largest source of allegations, and their numbers increased 

by approximately 20 percent. In considering those allegation sources mentioned previously that 

have the potential to offer 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 staff member who suspects that a regulatory requirement has been violated 

deliberately or because of careless disregard, thus prompting the initiation of an investigation by 

the NRC Office of Investigations. NRC staff suspected concerns decreased by 19 percent in 

2015. 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 

 

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

include news media, State and Federal agencies, and special interest groups. 

Contractor Employee 

Licensee Employee Anonymous

Licensee Identified

Private Citizen

NRC Staff

FIGURE 4 ALLEGATIONS BY SOURCE CATEGORY 

NATIONWIDE 2015
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

8 

assigns an allegation process tracking number to such items so that the 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 NRC staff uses to monitor the SCWE at reactor sites. The appendix 

to this report offers statistics on allegations for all operating and non-operating reactor sites. The 

NRC received the listed allegations during the 5-year period between January 2011 and 

December 2015 and includes 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. And because sites with a larger population of employees and contractors (such as 

three-unit reactor sites) typically generate more allegations, it is important to normalize the data 

to help ensure that those sites are not disproportionally chosen for further analysis. The 

following algorithm based on the median number of allegations received at operating reactor 

sites over the calendar year, and that considers the varying workforce size at different sites, 

determines what sites warranted this additional review: 

• 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 to 1,000 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 2015, the median number of allegations per operating reactor site was three. The following 

reactor sites met these criteria: Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3 (15), Salem Units 1 and 2/Hope 

Creek Unit 1 (14), Watts Bar Unit 1 (12), Wolf Creek (12), and Pilgrim (10). The criteria were 

also applied to non-operating (e.g., pre-operating license) sites and Vogtle Units 3 and 4 (39) 

and Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3 (30) also met these criteria. The staff’s analyses of the 

SCWE at these reactor sites are discussed below. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

9 

Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3 

The number of allegations received by the NRC from onsite sources at Palo Verde in 2015 only 

slightly increased from 2014. Nonetheless this is the third consecutive year there has been an 

increase. More than half of the allegations received from onsite sources in 2015 were received 

in the first two quarters of the year. While the concentration of concerns in the second quarter 

aligns with an April refueling outage, 

only two allegation concerns were 

received in the fourth quarter when the 

second outage occurred. Outages can 

typically generate allegations due to 

both the increased size of the workforce 

and off normal operations. Licensee 

employees represented a significant 

concentration of allegations received. 

There was a wide range and no 

noticeable trends in the disciplines of 

the concerns. There were two 

allegations related to SCWE concerns 

raised in 2015 at Palo Verde. Neither 

concern was substantiated. 

There were four discrimination concerns received in 2015. Two remained open at the time this 

report was being prepared and one was settled using the NRC’s early ADR process. From 2011 

to 2014, there were nine discrimination concerns received and none were substantiated. There 

was no trend in disciplines for the discrimination concerns received. 

Based on discussions with the licensee staff, Palo Verde’s Employee Concerns Program (ECP) 

received about 40 percent fewer concerns in 2015 than in the previous year. Similar to the 

trends seen in NRC allegations, the majority were received during the first two quarters of the 

year. There were no significant discipline trends identified in 2015 by the ECP staff, however, it 

was noted that some trends identified in previous years improved. Also of note, anonymous 

condition reports trended downward. 

In August through late-September 2015, the licensee conducted a safety culture assessment in 

which 87 percent of the workforce participated. The results showed a notable improvement 

(greater than 5 percent) over the last assessment conducted in 2012. The 2015 assessment 

identified one group requiring immediate management attention. An independent team was 

formed to develop a plan to address the identified weaknesses. 

In summary, based on the number and nature of allegations received in 2015, there does not 

appear to be an indication of a chilled work environment at Palo Verde. The two SCWE-related 

allegations received during the first quarter were unsubstantiated and in general the number of 

allegations received by the NRC had declined by the end of the year. Results from the 

licensee’s safety culture assessment do not indicate a reluctance to raise safety concerns. The 

NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at Palo Verde through normal inspection activities. 

0

5

10

15

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 5 PALO VERDE

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

10 

Salem Units 1 and 2/Hope Creek Unit 1 

An analysis of the number and nature of allegations received in 2015 does not suggest a SCWE 

concern at the Salem/Hope Creek site. The number of allegations received by the NRC from 

onsite sources regarding Salem/Hope Creek 

was notably higher than the number 

received in 2014; however, there was no 

concentration of allegations received from a 

particular plant or department. A notable 

number of allegations involving concerns 

related to corrective action efforts were 

evident. It is noted that 70 percent of the 

allegations received from onsite sources in 

2015 were provided to the NRC 

anonymously. While this percentage of 

anonymous allegations is abnormal, the 

reluctance of an alleger to provide identifying 

information to NRC is not necessarily an 

indication of a SCWE problem, unless the licensee is similarly receiving an abnormal number of 

anonymous concerns. Based on discussions with the licensee, this was not the case as the 

number of anonymous concerns submitted to the ECP was similar to those submitted in past 

years. About 35 percent of concerns were raised to the NRC in 2015 asserted a chilled work 

environment or a declining safety culture. Two of the three concerns submitted anonymously 

lacked sufficient detail to perform an evaluation. The others remained open at the time this 

report was being prepared. The chilled work environment concerns do not appear to be 

connected by a particular issue, or indicative of a larger problem within a group or department 

onsite. 

There was only one allegation of discrimination submitted to the NRC regarding Salem/Hope 

Creek in 2015. The concern was not investigated because the alleger did not establish a prima 

facie showing of potential discrimination. For clarification, to consider a matter of potential 

discrimination under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 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 protected activity, and that the protected activity was, in part, a reason for the adverse 

personnel action. In the 4 years prior to 2015, there were 9 allegations of discrimination 

submitted to NRC regarding Salem/Hope Creek. Although one was settled through the NRC’s 

early ADR process, none were substantiated. 

The most recent NRC Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R) Inspections at Salem/Hope 

Creek were accomplished in February 2015 (Hope Creek Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15085A348) and May 2015 (Salem ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15202A314). Neither inspection found evidence of a problem with the SCWE. 

Interviews indicated that workers were willing to use the Corrective Action Program and raise 

safety issues. None of the interviewees was aware of instances of retaliation, and all had 

knowledge of available avenues for raising safety concerns. 

The Salem/Hope Creek ECP also received some assertions of discrimination in 2015. While 

none were substantiated, they did correct inappropriate behaviors when identified. The 

Salem/Hope Creek ECP did not receive any concerns related to the SCWE in 2015. A sitewide 

0

5

10

15

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 6 SALEM/HOPE CREEK

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

11 

safety culture assessment was conducted in early 2015. The results indicated that there was a 

very strong environment for raising concerns at the site. 

In summary, an analysis of the number and nature of allegations received in 2015 does not 

suggest a SCWE concern at the Salem/Hope Creek site. The NRC will maintain its oversight of 

the SCWE at the site through normal inspection activities. 

Watts Bar Unit 1 

The number of allegations received by NRC from onsite sources, primarily from licensee 

employees, both current and former, regarding Watts Bar Unit 1 in 2015 more than doubled 

from the number received in 2014, after a slightly declining trend over the past 5 years, and a 

significant drop in concerns received in the past 2 years. In 2015 the rate of receipt increased in 

both the second and fourth quarters. The jump in the fourth quarter coincides with a refueling 

outage that can typically generate 

allegations because of both the increased 

size of the workforce and off-normal 

operations. One to three allegations were 

received in each of a variety of disciplines 

with no notable trend in any one discipline 

identified. Concerns received in the first 

half of 2015 asserting a chilled work 

environment were not substantiated; 

however, a review initiated by the NRC in 

late 2015 in response to an increase in 

minor operational issues resulted in the 

NRC issuing a chilling effect letter to the 

licensee on March 23, 2016 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML16083A479). 

In November 2015, the NRC inspected a reactor coolant system heat up of Unit 1 that began 

without the normal source of primary system let down available. The inspection efforts were 

challenged because of poor operator log keeping and the lack of condition reports initiated by 

the licensee. The NRC conducted interviews of licensee management and operators to gather 

information about both the November event and the SCWE in the Operations Department. 

A followup inspection was also conducted in January 2016 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML16098A323). In mid-February 2016, the NRC received additional information related to 

the SCWE issues and determined that sufficient evidence existed to support the issuance of the 

chilling effect letter concluding that Watts Bar employees in the Operations Department do not 

feel free to raise safety concerns using all available avenues without fear of retaliation. 

The site’s subset of discrimination allegations also trended upward compared to the previous 

year, but only by one concern. Three of the four discrimination concerns were received in the 

first two quarters of the year, and the last was received in the fourth quarter. Two remained 

open at the time of this analysis. No discrimination concerns have been substantiated in the 

past 5 years. 

The licensee’s ECP received about 35 percent fewer concerns for evaluation in 2015 than the 

previous year. No chilled work environment or retaliation concerns were substantiated by the 

ECP. Early in 2015, the program increased communications with the workforce on the ECP’s 

role and general trends and, throughout the year, the process was streamlined to allow the 

0

10

20

30

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 7 WATTS BAR 1 

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

12 

employee concerns professionals more time in the field and less on paperwork. In June 2015, 

TVA conducted a fleetwide survey consisting of several nuclear safety culture-related questions 

or statements the employees were asked to show agreement with on a scale of favorable, 

neutral, or unfavorable. Based on discussions with licensee staff, the results were fairly positive. 

TVA identified two organizations for targeted improvement and has prepared action plans to 

address identified weaknesses. 

In summary, based on information received through allegations, inspections, and interviews with 

the TVA workforce, the NRC has concluded a chilled work environment exists in the Operations 

Department. The NRC will review the licensee’s plan to improve the SCWE and assess its 

effectiveness during routine ROP inspections on Unit 1 and startup testing inspections on Unit 2. 

Additionally, the PI&R inspection scheduled for later in 2016, which reviews a sample of the 

plant’s corrective actions to identify and resolve any safety issues, will specifically evaluate the 

licensee’s actions taken to address the Operations Department work environment issues. The NRC 

will determine if additional action is needed based on the results of this inspection, as well as, 

ongoing observations by inspection staff. The NRC inspectors have increased their presence at 

the site, including on weekends and during backshift, to monitor operations. The NRC has also 

assigned a Senior Operations Advisor to provide additional oversight and support to the NRC 

inspection and regional management staff involved with the licensee’s oversight. 

Wolf Creek Unit 1 

In 2013, the NRC issued a chilling effect letter to the licensee about the SCWE at the Wolf 

Creek site after the NRC determined that the work environment in the Quality Assurance 

organization was not conducive to raising 

concerns. Since that time, the licensee 

has taken various actions to address 

weaknesses in the environment for 

raising concerns and in April 2015 the 

chilling effect letter and the ROP crosscutting theme in SCWE were closed.

The NRC chilling effect letter followup 

inspection (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML15086A560), completed in 

February 2015, evaluated the licensee’s 

root cause analyses, completed and 

planned corrective actions, metrics and 

measures implemented to monitor progress, and the results of independent safety culture 

surveys and assessments performed in 2013 and 2014. To validate the licensee’s internal 

survey results, interviews with individuals from various disciplines were conducted. The 

interviewees generally felt that the safety culture improvements made had been effective. The 

NRC team determined that the licensee had taken appropriate actions to foster a workplace 

environment that encourages employees to raise safety concerns to feel free to do so without 

fear of retaliation, and that no chilling effect existed. 

The number of allegations received by the NRC from onsite sources at Wolf Creek in 2015 only 

slightly increased from 2014. However, the trend of onsite allegations received since 2011 has 

been steadily increasing. Allegations were received by as many former contractors as by 

licensee employees. There was a wide range in concern disciplines. There were three allegation 

concerns raised in 2015 about the SCWE, two of which remained open and under evaluation at 

0

5

10

15

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 8 WOLF CREEK

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

13 

the time this report was being prepared. A third SCWE concern was not substantiated. 

Discrimination concerns at Wolf Creek have been increasing. Of the nine discrimination 

concerns received in 2015, there were concerns over seven disciplines. From the period 

between 2011 and 2015, there have been 22 discrimination concerns received by the NRC. 

None of the discrimination concerns received during this timeframe were substantiated by the 

NRC; however, the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

issued a finding of discrimination for one concern not investigated by the NRC. Of these 

22 concerns, four remained open and under investigation at the time this report was being 

prepared and two were settled in the NRC’s early ADR process. 

Based on discussions with the licensee staff, Wolf Creek’s ECP received a similar number of 

employee concerns in 2015 as they received in the previous year. In late October through the 

first week of December 2015, the licensee conducted a safety culture assessment. The licensee 

reported that the results were fairly positive. The results indicated, however, that many 

employees were unaware of the licensee’s Safety Culture Monitoring Panel that examines 

safety culture issues and trends and reports to the leadership team, and some were concerned 

about changes to the Corrective Action Program. The licensee indicated that risk-informed 

prioritization was new to program and further communication was necessary to ensure the 

workforce understood how their concerns were being prioritized. 

In summary, considering the recent licensee actions to improve the work environment related to 

the 2013 chilling effect letter, the 2015 closure of the chilling effect letter indicating that a chilling 

effect did not exist and taking into account the number and nature of allegations received in 

2015, there does not appear to be an indication of a current work environment concern at 

Wolf Creek. The NRC will oversee the SCWE at Wolf Creek through normal inspection activities 

and allow time for the implemented actions in response to the chilling effect letter to continue to 

improve the safety culture.

Pilgrim Unit 1 

Based on the number and nature of allegations received from onsite sources at Pilgrim in 2015 

timeframe, there does not appear to be a work environment problem at the site. The number of 

allegations received in 2015 represents a notable increase compared to the number received 

each year from onsite sources at Pilgrim over the past several calendar years. The majority of 

the allegation concerns received in 2015 

were related to the security area. The rate 

of receipt was spread evenly throughout 

the year, with a slight increase in the 

second quarter during a refueling outage. 

Three concerns were raised in 2015 

asserting a chilled work environment. Two 

were not substantiated and one remained 

open at the time this report was being 

prepared. The chilled work environment 

concerns do not appear to be connected 

by a particular issue, or indicative of a 

larger problem within a group or 

department onsite. 

0

5

10

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 9 PILGRIM 

ALLEGATIONS 

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

14 

There were three discrimination concerns submitted to NRC regarding Pilgrim in 2015, all in the 

last third of the year, two of which were received late in the calendar year and remained open at 

the time this report was being prepared. In the 4 years before 2015, there were six total 

discrimination concerns raised regarding Pilgrim and none were substantiated. 

From a plant performance perspective, as of the end of 2014, Pilgrim was in the Degraded 

Cornerstone column of the ROP action matrix because two parallel White findings in the 

Initiating Events cornerstone had been opened because of the objectives of a late-2014 

95002 inspection (ADAMS Accession No. ML15026A069) not being met for the two White 

performance indicators. However, it was noted at that time that the contributing factors to the 

assessment level did not appear to be related to a SCWE problem. While the 95002 inspection 

team did identify problems in the corrective action area, the team also noted that the licensee 

effectively identified the Corrective Action Program implementation weaknesses that had 

contributed to performance issues. The 95002 inspection team conducted interviews and focus 

group meetings with a large number of site staff, including supervisors and senior managers, in 

part, to gain a sense of whether SCWE and safety culture aspects might be contributing to 

current performance issues. Most of the feedback provided by site workers related to the SCWE 

area was very positive. The 95002 inspection team also reviewed the most recent licenseeinitiated safety culture assessment. The NRC team did not identify any departments with 

concerns beyond those already identified by the Pilgrim Nuclear Safety Culture Monitoring 

Panel. 

Pilgrim has been in the Repetitive Degraded Cornerstone column of the ROP action matrix 

since the start of first quarter of 2015 following a significance determination related to a White 

Finding under the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone. Pilgrim was already in the Degraded 

Cornerstone column for more than five consecutive quarters by the beginning of 2015 because 

of the two open White inputs under Initiating Events. The Initiating Events White input was 

closed in June 2015 after successful completion of followup efforts was documented through an 

NRC inspection report (ADAMS Accession No. ML15169A946). Notwithstanding the removal of 

the two White Initiating Events inputs, Pilgrim was placed in ROP Column 4 because of the 

duration of the original inputs, the repetitive nature of new findings, persistent weaknesses in 

the Corrective Action Program, and repeated unplanned scrams and equipment failures. 

A 95003 inspection is forthcoming, focused on the Corrective Action Program and 

safety culture. 

The most recent PI&R inspection (ADAMS Accession No. ML15273A456) found the site to be 

marginally effective at implementing their Corrective Action Program and evaluating and 

resolving problems. The team acknowledged that problems were entered into the Corrective 

Action Program with a low threshold, but noted that the licensee did not consistently prioritize, 

evaluate, and implement corrective actions to resolve problems in a timely manner 

commensurate with safety significance. In the SCWE area, the PI&R inspection found no 

evidence of challenges to the SCWE. Multiple interviews were conducted and employees 

expressed willingness to raise safety issues. None of the interviewees experienced or were 

aware of a situation where someone else was retaliated against for raising a safety issue. 

Interviewees demonstrated adequate knowledge of the avenues available for raising safety 

issues. The inspection team also performed sample reviews of anonymous condition reports 

and ECP files, and interviewed the ECP manager. 

Like the NRC, the Pilgrim ECP also received a substantial portion of its concerns in 2015 in the 

Security area and saw an increased receipt rate around the time of the spring 2015 refueling 

outage. A substantial portion of issues processed by ECP as “Rapid Resolutions” (nuclear 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

15 

safety/quality issues not requiring a full investigation) involved assertions that issues were not 

being properly addressed via the Corrective Action Program. Two discrimination concerns were 

processed by ECP in 2015. Both were closed as unsubstantiated. Based on discussions with 

the ECP staff, the results of the most recent site-wide assessment of the safety culture and 

SCWE conducted by an external contractor in July and August 2015 indicated overall 

improvement in leadership and in the ECP. ECP visibility was noted as a strength. 

In summary, the number and nature of allegations received from onsite sources at Pilgrim 

in 2015 does not appear to indicate a work environment problem. Pilgrim is currently in the 

Repetitive Degraded Cornerstone column of the ROP action matrix, but at this point in time, the 

contributing factors to this current assessment level do not appear to be related to a SCWE 

problem. While a recent (late-2014) 95002 inspection and the most recent PI&R inspection did 

identify concerns in the corrective action area, neither identified concerns with the work 

environment. A 95003 inspection is forthcoming at Pilgrim and will include focuses on the 

Corrective Action Program and safety culture, including the health of the environment for raising 

concerns. 

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 

The number of allegations received by NRC from onsite sources regarding Vogtle Units 3 and 4 

under construction in 2015 increased significantly from the number received in 2014 continuing 

an upward trend over the past 5 years. 

However, throughout the calendar year, the 

volume decreased each quarter. Allegation 

sources, not surprisingly, were concentrated 

in the contractor and former contractor 

categories. The majority of concerns received 

were either chilling effect or discrimination 

concerns. 

All but one of the chilling effect concerns 

were raised in the first three quarters of the 

year and at a steady rate. The region’s 

annual inspection of the licensee’s corrective 

action program and SCWE was completed in 

late May 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15173A445) and with regard to the site’s environment 

for raising concerns, identified no issues. Specifically, the inspection team found that thresholds 

for identifying issues were adequate to ensure that adverse conditions were appropriately 

evaluated and corrected, that SCWE training required by an NRC 2014 confirmatory order was 

effective, and that employees believed the Corrective Action Program and ECP are effectively 

handling concerns. In general, the inspection concluded that the licensee and contractor 

employees were comfortable raising concerns, that corrective actions taken in response to 

previously identified SCWE concerns seemed to be effective, and that the SCWE was improving 

as a result of increased leadership emphasis. These conclusions were based on interviews with 

licensee and contractor employees, interviews with ECP and SCWE subject matter experts, and 

document reviews, including the results of self-assessments, required training, and trends in the 

Corrective Action Program and ECP. 

Despite these positive general observations, pockets of concern were found to exist in the 

3 months after the NRC’s inspection and three chilled work environment allegations were 

substantiated. The staff reviewed the licensee’s and contractor’s investigations requested by the 

0

20

40

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 10 VOGTLE 3 AND 4

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

16 

NRC and concluded that they were thorough and the actions taken to address weaknesses in 

the environment for raising concerns were appropriate. 

As with allegations in general, the site’s subset of discrimination allegations also trended 

significantly upward compared to the previous year. The rate of receipt throughout 2015, 

however, declined. Half of the discrimination concerns submitted to the NRC in 2015 were still 

open at that the time this report was prepared and one was settled in the early ADR process. No 

discrimination concerns have been substantiated in the past 5 years. 

Approximately 6,000 workers were on the Vogtle construction site during this review period, 

most of which were contractors and subcontractors. The primary contractor maintained its own 

ECP and received over 800 concerns requiring an investigation, rapid response, or referral; 

significantly more than were received in 2014. More than half of the issues brought to the 

contractor’s ECP involved wrongdoing, discrimination, or chilling effect concerns. Nearly 

30 percent of all concerns were received anonymously, which, although very high, is an 

improvement over last year. A safety culture assessment conducted by the contractor in late 

August 2015 showed notable improvement in the PI&R safety culture trait. However, this and 

other traits received a positive response rate of less than 75 percent. 

In summary, the work environment at the Vogtle construction site remains a challenge. Second 

quarter efforts by the contractor to arrest the volume of allegations going to the NRC and 

improve the SCWE were only partly effective. Allegation rates declined throughout the year, but 

the contractor’s third quarter survey results indicate significant improvement is still needed. 

The NRC will maintain its oversight of the SCWE at the Vogtle Unit 3 and 4 site through normal 

inspection activities to ensure corrective actions are completed and result in sustained 

performance improvements. 

Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3 

The number of allegations received by NRC from onsite sources regarding Virgil C. (VC) 

Summer Units 2 and 3 in 2015 increased significantly from the number received in 2014 

continuing an upward trend over the past 5 

years. However, throughout the calendar 

year, the volume decreased each quarter. 

Furthermore, about 75 percent of the total 

number of allegations were received in the 

first two quarters of the year. Allegation 

sources, not surprisingly, were concentrated 

in the contractor and former contractor 

categories. The majority of concerns 

received were either chilling effect or 

discrimination concerns. More than half of 

the 16 chilling effect concerns were raised in 

the first quarter of the year and then receipt 

of such concerns steadily declined.

The region’s annual inspection of the 

licensee’s Corrective Action Program and 

SCWE was completed in late April 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15148A161) and with 

regard to the site’s environment for raising concerns, identified no concerns. Specifically, the 

inspection team found that thresholds for identifying issues were adequate to ensure that 

0

10

20

30

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 11 VC SUMMER 2 AND 3

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

17 

adverse conditions were appropriately evaluated and corrected, that SCWE training required by 

an NRC 2014 Confirmatory Order was effective, and that employees believe the Corrective 

Action Program and ECP are effectively handling concerns. In general, the inspection 

concluded that licensee and contractor employees were comfortable raising concerns, that 

corrective actions taken in response to previously identified SCWE concerns appeared to be 

effective, and that the SCWE was improving as a result of increased leadership emphasis. 

These conclusions were based on interviews with licensee and contractor employees; 

interviews with ECP and SCWE subject matter experts; and document reviews, including the 

results of self-assessments, required training, and trends in the corrective action program and 

ECP. 

Despite those positive overall observations, the NRC concluded in the second quarter of the 

year that the craft workforce was chilled, which resulted in 14 separate chilling effect allegations 

being substantiated. The staff reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee and 

contractor and found them to be adequate to address the chilled work environment. Corrective 

actions included refresher training, primarily for the leadership team, leadership assessments, 

new corrective action program drop boxes, better trending of anonymous concerns, and 

increased routine meetings with craft employees to assess the effectiveness of these actions. 

As with allegations in general, the site’s subset of discrimination allegations also trended 

significantly upward as compared to the previous year. Almost all of the discrimination concerns 

were received in the first two quarters of the year. Half of the discrimination concerns submitted 

to the NRC in 2015 remained open at the time this report was being prepared and two were 

settled using the NRC’s in early ADR process. No discrimination concerns have been 

substantiated in the past 5 years. 

Approximately 4,000 workers were on the construction site during this review period, most of 

them contractors and subcontractors. The primary contractor maintained its own ECP and 

based on discussions with the licensee and contractor they received over 300 formal and 

informal concerns, which represent approximately one and a half times as many as they 

received in 2014. Formal concerns requiring investigation trended down throughout the year. 

Half as many anonymous concerns were received by the ECP in 2015 as in 2014. And, lastly, 

the contractor substantiated and took actions to address a number of chilled work environment 

concerns in the first two quarters, but no discrimination concerns were substantiated. 

The contractor conducted a small survey in February 2015 and a full safety culture assessment 

in October 2015. Several nuclear safety culture traits received a positive response rate of less 

than 75 percent, although the contractor noted that both the Respectful Work Environment and 

Environment for Raising Concerns traits showed improvement compared to last year’s 

assessment and the February 2015 survey. Overall, the contractor concluded that efforts to 

improve management behavior is still needed, but actions taken throughout the year in 

response to trends noted in the fourth quarter of 2014 and the February 2015 survey results 

indicate they are improving the SCWE and overall safety culture at the VC Summer Units 2 and 

3 site. Those actions included program improvements to the ECP and Nuclear Safety Culture 

Monitoring Panel, improved communication tools, and new training for ECP, Human Resources, 

and Site Leadership on how to recognize signs of retaliation, and for foremen on how to become 

a preferred path for employee concern resolution. 

In summary, although there was a sharp increase in allegations at the VC Summer Units 2 

and 3 construction site in 2015 and many of those were chilled work environment and 

discrimination concerns, the receipt rate trended down by the end of the year. The contractor’s 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

18 

ECP saw similar trends. Based on the NRC’s inspections and contractor’s self-assessments it is 

evident that although efforts to date have resulted in some improvement, work is still needed to 

ensure a strong environment for raising concerns. The NRC will maintain its oversight of the 

SCWE at the VC Summer Units 2 and 3 construction site through normal inspection activities. 

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 offered 

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

otherwise, 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 Trends for Selected Vendors 

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

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

vendor, Chicago Bridge and Iron (CB&I) at two different sites warrant discussion in this report. 

CB&I Lake Charles 

The number of allegations received by the NRC from onsite sources regarding the CB&I Lake 

Charles fabrication facility in 2015 continued to decrease significantly from the number received 

in the previous two years. There was no notable trend identified in any one discipline. One 

concern asserting a chilled work 

environment was substantiated in the 

last half of the year, but the NRC 

concluded that the vendor was taking 

effective corrective actions to address 

the concern. Four discrimination 

concerns were received in 2015, which 

also represented a decline from the 

volume received in 2014. Of these 

discrimination concerns, two remain 

open and in the early ADR process; one 

was withdrawn by the alleger; and one 

did not make a prima facie showing. In 

the five year review period none of 

those investigated by the NRC since 2011 have been substantiated, however a number of 

discrimination concerns have been settled between the alleger and their employer in the early 

ADR process. In 2011 a substantiated discrimination concern resulted in the issuance of a 

confirmatory order to CB&I after a successful post-investigation ADR session with the NRC 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML13232A282). The confirmatory order issued by the NRC on 

April 18, 2013 represented a settlement agreement between the NRC and the vendor 

concerning a Notice of Violation of the NRC’s 10 CFR 52.5, “Employee Protection” regulation 

and proposed civil penalty (ADAMS Accession No. ML13050A597). 

 

0

10

20

30

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 12 CB&I LAKE CHARLES

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

19 

Also in April 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 2012 and the first quarter of 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. 

Finally in September 2014, the 2013 confirmatory order was revised and superseded to 

enhance actions that CB&I had previously agreed to take to address issues related to willful 

violations of NRC requirements and deliberate misconduct that occurred at the Lake Charles 

facility in 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14248A402). Additional actions by the vendor include 

training to highlight the errors behind the violations and enhanced monitoring of the safety 

culture. 

In response to both the chilling effect letter and confirmatory order, CB&I committed to taking a 

number of actions at all nuclear locations including Lake Charles. These include 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, 

deliberate misconduct, and SCWE training; improving or developing a number of safety culture 

processes, such as the ECP and safety culture monitoring tools; and performing comprehensive 

nuclear safety culture assessments of all CB&I nuclear business entities. The monitoring tools 

included the implementation of an external oversight board including independent consultants 

with nuclear experience, to oversee implementation of these corrective actions, review 

performance improvement progress, and provide feedback on apparent effectiveness of 

corrective actions. 

In May 2015, a vendor inspection at the Lake Charles facility was conducted that included a 

review of the actions taken in response to the chilling effect letter and confirmatory order 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML15169A231). The inspection team concluded that CB&I was meeting 

the conditions specified in the confirmatory order at the facility. The safety culture, including the 

SCWE, continued to show improvement. Most CB&I Lake Charles personnel told the inspectors 

that they were willing and able to raise concerns through multiple avenues without fear of 

retaliation. If continued to be effectively implemented, the NRC concluded that the actions taken 

by the vendor should result in a sustained SCWE. 

In January 2016, Westinghouse acquired the majority of the nuclear assets of CB&I 

Nuclear. CB&I Lake Charles was not acquired as part of the Westinghouse acquisition and 

remains a CB&I manufacturing facility. In the summer of 2016 CB&I Lake Charles is expected to 

complete its existing scope of safety-related work. The NRC continues to monitor the vendor’s 

SCWE and to assess CB&I’s compliance with the terms of the confirmatory order and chilling 

effect letter. 

CB&I Charlotte 

The number of allegations received by the NRC from onsite sources at CB&I Charlotte 

significantly increased in 2015. Although there was a wide range in concern disciplines, the 

largest number of concerns involved quality assurance issues. There were four allegation 

concerns raised in 2015 about the SCWE, one of which was substantiated and two that are still 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

20 

open and under evaluation. The substantiated concern was raised in the first quarter of the year 

and involved CB&I source inspectors. The NRC is monitoring the vendor’s implementation of 

corrective actions to improve the SCWE. 

The two chilling effect concerns that are 

still open were received late in 2015. 

There were four discrimination concerns 

received in 2015 all of which are still open 

and being investigated. Like Lake Charles 

and other business groups within CB&I 

where nuclear related activities are 

conducted, CB&I Charlotte was also 

subject to the confirmatory order issued 

by the NRC in April 2013 concerning a 

Notice of Violation of the NRC’s 

10 CFR 52.5, “Employee Protection” 

regulation (ADAMS Accession No. ML13050A597) and then revised and superseded in 2014 to 

address deliberate misconduct concerns (ADAMS Accession No. ML14248A402). 

Based on discussions with CB&I ECP personnel, CB&I Charlotte’s ECP also received 

significantly more concerns in 2015. Most of those concerns were from source inspectors 

working at suppliers locations. A majority of the ECP investigations conducted were in the fourth 

quarter of 2015 which is when the Westinghouse acquisition of CB&I Charlotte was announced. 

At the time this report was prepared, there had been no changes in the SCWE policy associated 

with the acquisition. 

In summary, in late summer 2015, based on an allegation received in the first quarter, the 

vendor and NRC concluded a chilled work environment exists in the source inspector’s 

organization. The NRC reviewed the vendor’s plan to improve the SCWE and will maintain 

oversight to assess its effectiveness. The NRC will determine if additional action is needed 

based, in part, on the results of ongoing evaluations of the two open chilled work environment 

allegation concerns received late in 2015. 

Trends in the Agreement States

As explained earlier in this report, 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 14 shows the 37 Agreement States. 

The NRC has statutory responsibility to review periodically 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. 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 the NRC’s Office 

of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards at https://scp.nrc.gov. 

0

5

10

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FIGURE 13 CB&I CHARLOTTE

ALLEGATIONS

Substantiated Closed Received
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

21 

FIGURE 14 AGREEMENT STATES 

In 2015, the NRC completed routine IMPEP reviews of eight 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 68 cases 

cumulatively received by all of the programs reviewed. The NRC referred 32 of the 68 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 2015 adequately protected the identity of any concerned individual who requested 

anonymity. In general, the results of the 2015 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. 

 

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

NH

VT

RI 

Agreement States (37)

NRC States (13)
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

22 

OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Activities in 2015 in areas closely related to the Allegation Program and SCWE Policy are 

discussed below, including statistics associated with the agency-sponsored early ADR program. 

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’ workers and the review of pertinent 

documents during the baseline PI&R 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. 

 

Requests for Information Regarding Discrimination Findings 

The Department of Labor or another federal authority other than the NRC (e.g., U. S. Circuit 

Court) periodically substantiates a discrimination concern under Section 211 of the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974. In such cases, while NRC enforcement action is being considered, 

NRC staff typically will issue 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, including any actions that have been taken or are 

planned to assess and mitigate the potential chilling effect that might be caused by the finding. It 

also informs the workforce of the NRC’s interest in the state of the environment for raising 

concerns at the site. At the time such letters are issued, the NRC has confirmed neither that 

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

to help inform the NRC’s potential evaluation efforts going forward. The NRC issued no 

requests of this nature in 2015. 

Chilling Effect Letters

When NRC 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, the 

NRC will issue what is referred to as a chilling effect letter to ensure that the licensee is taking 

appropriate actions to foster a workplace environment that encourages employees and 

contractors to raise safety concerns and to feel free to do so without fear of retaliation. 

No chilling effect letters were issued by the NRC in 2015; however, one was issued in early 

2016 concerning the Watts Bar Unit 1 site and is discussed in a previous section of this report. 

Early 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 gives 

parties extra 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 supplies, 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 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

23 

“post-investigation ADR.” More 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 about 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, 29 of the early ADR offers made by the NRC in association 

with discrimination allegations raised in 2015 resulted in agreements to mediate. Of those 

29 cases, 12 resulted in the parties reaching a mutually agreeable settlement. The remaining 

17 cases are either still being processed or were referred to the NRC’s Office of Investigations 

because the parties did not reach a settlement. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

24 

CONCLUSIONS

The total number of allegations received from 2011 through 2015 declined slightly over the 

5-year period. Although facility- or vendor-specific matters do play a significant role in allegation 

trends, anecdotal information suggests that the overall decline may be the result of increased 

efforts by the NRC and nuclear industry to focus attention on developing and maintaining 

stronger environments for raising concerns at regulated entities. The 15 percent increase in 

2015 reflects the significant construction activities at the new reactor sites. In 2015, coinciding 

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

received increased as well. The significant increase in discrimination and chilling effect related 

concerns also is associated with concerns raised by contractor employees at the reactor and 

vendor sites associated with the new construction sites. 

The analyses of allegations have supplied 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 12 cases of discrimination allegations being settled 

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 could 

an investigation. 
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-1

APPENDIX 

ALLEGATION STATISTICS FOR 

OPERATING REACTORS, NON-OPERATING REACTORS, AND FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES

OPERATING REACTOR ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED FROM ONSITE SOURCES 

Site 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

ARKANSAS 1 & 2 3 6 1 2 10

BEAVER VALLEY 1 & 2 1 1 1 5 1

BRAIDWOOD 1 & 2 2 2 2 0 2

BROWNS FERRY 1, 2 & 3 11 16 15 11 6

BRUNSWICK 1 & 2 3 6 1 0 2

BYRON 1 & 2 3 3 0 0 2

CALLAWAY 1 5 6 3 5

CALVERT CLIFFS 1 & 2 1 1 3 2 1

CATAWBA 1 & 2 3 3 1 5 3

CLINTON 1 1 1 0 1

COLUMBIA PLANT 5 1 5 1 3

COMANCHE PEAK 1 & 2 3 2 3 5 3

COOK 1 & 2 5 0 5 4 5

COOPER 5 3 4 2 1

DAVIS-BESSE 4 0 5 5 1

DIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 9 5 6 1 4

DRESDEN 2 & 3 2 0 2 7 3

DUANE ARNOLD 1 2 3 4 1

FARLEY 1 & 2 12 9 6 3 2

FERMI 3 1 1 0 9

FITZPATRICK 2 2 0 1 1

FORT CALHOUN 4 3 5 4 6

GINNA 10 4 0 1 0

GRAND GULF 3 10 2 0 4

HARRIS 3 6 2 2 6

HATCH 1 & 2 4 5 3 5 5

INDIAN POINT 2 & 3 15 17 13 6 2

LASALLE 1 & 2 2 0 2 1 1

LIMERICK 1 & 2 3 5 1 3 1

MCGUIRE 1 & 2 5 1 3 1 5

MILLSTONE 2 & 3 11 9 4 6 4

MONTICELLO 3 2 1 3 0

NINE MILE POINT 1 & 2 5 2 0 1 0

NORTH ANNA 1 & 2 1 1 1 0 3

OCONEE 1, 2, & 3 4 6 3 5 8
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-2

Site 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

OYSTER CREEK 0 3 1 2 3

PALISADES 5 5 11 8 3

PALO VERDE 1, 2, & 3 8 7 10 12 15

PEACH BOTTOM 2 & 3 3 1 7 2 2

PERRY 5 10 7 1 2

PILGRIM 5 2 4 5 10

POINT BEACH 1 & 2 6 4 3 4 2

PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 & 2 7 9 11 8 2

QUAD CITIES 1 & 2 1 1 3 1 4

RIVER BEND 0 0 3 2 3

ROBINSON 6 4 4 0 1

SALEM/HOPE CREEK 4 5 12 8 14

SEABROOK 7 5 5 2 1

SEQUOYAH 1 & 2 0 19 5 7 7

SOUTH TEXAS 1 & 2 5 8 5 4 7

ST LUCIE 1 & 2 16 7 8 4 6

SUMMER 4 1 0 4 4

SURRY 1 & 2 4 1 1 1 2

SUSQUEHANNA 1 & 2 22 21 9 14 3

THREE MILE ISLAND 3 0 0 3 0

TURKEY POINT 3 & 4 17 17 6 2 8

VOGTLE 1 & 2 12 5 2 3 5

WATERFORD 2 4 4 3 2

WATTS BAR 1 5 21 8 5 12

WOLF CREEK 4 5 6 9 12
ALLEGATION PROGRAM 2015 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT 

A-3

NON-OPERATING REACTOR ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED FROM ONSITE SOURCES 

Site 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

BELLEFONTE 1 2 1 0 0 0

BELLEFONTE 3 & 4 2 1 0 0 0

CRYSTAL RIVER 1 1 1 0 0

HUMBOLDT BAY 2 2 0 0 1

KEWAUNEE 1 1 0 0 0

LA CROSSE 0 1 1 0 0

SAN ONOFRE 1 0 1 0 0 0

SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 23 29 9 3 0

SUMMER 2 & 3 0 10 6 12 30

VERMONT YANKEE 2 0 1 1 0

VOGTLE 3 & 4 3 6 6 16 39

WATTS BAR 2 10 7 14 7 11

ZION 3 1 2 1 0

FUEL CYCLE FACILITY ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED FROM ONSITE SOURCES 

Site 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

American Centrifuge Plant 1 1 0 0 0

BWX Tech. 0 0 1 2 0

Framatone-Rich. 0 1 0 1 0

GE-Hitachi GLE 0 1 0 0 0

Global Nuclear 5 5 2 1 3

Honeywell 3 6 6 10 5

Louisiana Energy Svcs. 12 2 9 5 4

Nuclear Fuel Svcs. 4 8 6 4 3

Paducah 6 2 2 1 0

Shaw Areva MOX 4 10 4 1 2

Westinghouse 1 0 0 0 1