U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE (MD)

MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DT-16-05

Volume 8: Licensee Oversight Programs 

Approved By: Victor M. McCree

Executive Director for Operations

Date Approved: January 29, 2016

Expiration Date: January 29, 2021

Issuing Office: Office of Enforcement

Concerns Resolution Branch

Contact Name: Lisamarie L. Jarriel

301-415-8529

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Management Directive (MD) 8.8 is being revised to reflect minor editorial changes and 

changes in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s policies and procedures for handling 

allegations associated with NRC-regulated activities to include the following: 

• Changes in organizational responsibility (consolidation of the Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs and the Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, and centralization of training in the Office of the Chief 

Human Capital Officer), required training, and position titles (Office of Investigations (OI)

Field Office Director (FOD) to OI Special Agent in Charge (SAIC), Deputy Executive 

Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

(DEDMRT) to Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, 

Compliance, Administration, and Human Capital (DEDM));

• Changes prescribed in allegation guidance memoranda (AGMs) issued since the last 

revision of the management directive in December 2010 (specifically AGM 2011-001, 

“Late Filed Allegations,” dated November 20, 2011, and AGM 2012-001, “NRC 

Chilling Effect Letters,” dated March 9, 2012); 

• Changes prescribed by Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM) 2015-001, 

Revision 1, “Documentation of Security-Related Information in Publicly Available 

Cover Letters Related to Enforcement Documents,” dated June 2, 2015, which relates 

to the amount of security-related information that may be publicly released (see 

Section II.L.3(d) of this handbook);
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 2

• The responsibility for regional administrators and specified headquarters office 

directors to assure that all employees within their office or region receive allegation 

process refresher training biennially. The biennial allegation refresher training 

requirement will also apply to staff in the offices of each Commissioner (see 

Section III.K of this directive and Section II.R of this handbook); 

• The responsibility for headquarters office directors and regional administrators to 

consult with the Agency Allegation Advisor for the development of Office Allegation 

Coordinator position descriptions (see Section III.K of this directive);

• Clarification that the Allegation Review Board (ARB) chairperson makes the final 

decisions regarding the actions proposed during the ARB meeting and provides final 

approval for requested actions (see Section II.I.2(d) of this handbook); and 

• New language noting that in instances involving unsubstantiated OI cases, when no 

enforcement action is intended subsequent to an OI investigation, or when NRC 

decides to wait for completion of the Department of Labor process before taking 

enforcement action, the alleger will be provided with a short summary of the results of 

the OI investigation and the licensee will be provided with either the OI investigation 

synopsis or other appropriate summary describing the staff’s conclusions regarding 

the results of the OI investigation (see Section II.L.4 of this handbook).

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. POLICY..............................................................................................................................3

II. OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................3

III. ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY...........5

A. Commission..................................................................................................................5

B. Executive Director for Operations (EDO) ......................................................................6

C. Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, 

Compliance, Administration, and Human Capital (DEDM) ............................................6

D. Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and the Regional Counsel..................................6

E. Office of the Inspector General (OIG) ...........................................................................7

F. Chief Information Officer...............................................................................................7

G. Director, Office of Enforcement (OE) ............................................................................7

H. Director, Office of Investigations (OI)............................................................................8

I. Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS).............................8

J. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO).....................................................9

K. Office Directors and Regional Administrators ...............................................................9
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 3

L. Agency Allegation Advisor (AAA)................................................................................12

M. Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC)...........................................................................13

IV. APPLICABILITY ..............................................................................................................14

V. DIRECTIVE HANDBOOK ................................................................................................15

VI. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................15

I. POLICY

A. It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that allegations associated 

with NRC-regulated activities1 are properly documented, assigned for evaluation, 

assessed for safety significance, and evaluated in accordance with this management 

directive (MD). In implementing this MD, responsible NRC staff will—

− Protect the identities of individuals, where appropriate and possible, to preclude 

actual or potential discrimination by employers against individuals who engage in 

NRC-protected activity or stigmatization by coworkers or members of the public. 

− Respond immediately to an allegation involving an overriding safety issue (OSI)

(see definition of OSI issue in Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook).

− Request information from licensees in support of allegation evaluation, whenever 

possible and appropriate, and in all cases involving an OSI. 

− Provide input to agency efforts to monitor whether licensees promote a work 

environment conducive to employees raising safety concerns through the trending of 

allegations. Insight is also gained from reviews of licensee employee concerns 

programs, licensee self-assessments, and observations by NRC inspectors.

B. NRC employees are required to adhere to the policy and procedures for handling 

allegations set forth in this MD and any applicable regional or headquarters office 

implementing procedures. In case of a conflict between this MD and regional or 

headquarters office procedures, this MD takes precedence.

II. OBJECTIVES

— Encourage individuals to identify concerns associated with NRC-regulated activities to 

their employers or to the NRC. 

 1 For the purposes of this directive, concerns associated with NRC-regulated activities are those that 

fall within the scope of the agency’s mission.
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 4

— Pursue feedback from responsible parties, where appropriate, when evaluating an 

allegation. 

— Acknowledge the receipt of allegations and inform individuals who make allegations, 

where appropriate and possible, of NRC’s evaluation and conclusions regarding their 

concerns. 

— Investigate allegations of potential wrongdoing. 

— Ensure that individuals making allegations are treated professionally, are encouraged to 

provide information, and receive timely feedback by way of correspondence, telephone 

discussions, and visits, as appropriate.

— Ensure that the identity of an alleger is not disclosed outside the agency unless one of 

the following applies:

• The alleger has clearly indicated no objection to being identified, and releasing the 

alleger’s identity is necessary to evaluate the allegation, or if the NRC determines 

that the release is necessary to support the agency’s mission.

• Disclosure is necessary because of an OSI.

• Disclosure is necessary pursuant to an order of a court or NRC adjudicatory authority 

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

responsibilities under law or public trust.

• Disclosure is necessary to further a wrongdoing investigation.

• An investigation involves a matter of alleged discrimination.

• Disclosure is necessary to support a hearing on an enforcement matter.

• Disclosure is mandated by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

• The alleger has taken actions that are inconsistent with and override the purpose of 

protecting his or her identity.

- Ensure that an alleger filing a discrimination complaint is informed that a personal 

remedy may be available through the Department of Labor (DOL) for any discriminatory 

practices by his or her employer (or former or prospective employer) for engaging in 

protected activity under Section 211, “Employee Protection,” of the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.), hereafter referred to 

as ERA Section 211 (see 10 CFR Parts 19.20, 30.7, 40.7, 50.7, 52.5, 60.9, 61.9, 63.9, 

70.7, 71.9, 72.10, 76.7, and 150.20).

— Ensure that, as an alternative to an investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations 

(OI), an alleger who establishes a prima facie showing of potential discrimination for 

engaging in protected activity is offered the opportunity to engage in mediation with his 

or her employer (or former/prospective employer) through the NRC’s Early Alternative 
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 5

Dispute Resolution (Early ADR) program or through a licensee’s internal dispute 

resolution program as a means of obtaining issue resolution, and that the alleger 

understands that the timeliness requirement for filing a complaint with DOL (180 days) 

is not altered by the NRC’s Early ADR program.

— Ensure that the following types of procedures are established and followed:

• Procedures for notifying OI of matters that involve potential wrongdoing; and

• Procedures for the initiation, prioritization, and termination of resulting OI 

investigations. 

— Ensure that concerns pertaining to Agreement State licensees that are not under NRC 

jurisdiction are provided to the appropriate regional office and referred to the affected 

Agreement State through the Regional State Agreement Officer (RSAO). 

— Ensure that matters related to occupational health and safety are referred to the 

responsible licensee and to DOL’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA), as appropriate, in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1007, 

“Interfacing Activities between Regional Offices of NRC and OSHA.”

— Ensure that concerns processed as allegations, as defined in Section VI, “Glossary,” of 

this handbook, are entered into and tracked by the Allegation Management System 

(AMS) database.

— Ensure that each action office, as defined in Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook—

• Maintains current and accurate information on assigned allegations in the official 

agency record (the hard-copy allegation file) and through the AMS.

• Shares the information with other headquarters and regional offices on a 

need-to-know basis.

III. ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY

A. Commission

1. Approves, as appropriate, the revocation of the confidentiality agreement for an alleger 

who is granted confidential source status by the Commission, the EDO, or any office 

reporting to the EDO or to the Commission (see Section IV.C.1 of this handbook). 

2. Requires staff to reveal a confidential source in appropriate circumstances as 

described in Section IV.E.2(b) of this handbook.

3. Provides guidance when the NRC is considering investigating the character or 

suitability of an entity under the NRC’s statutory authority. (This also applies to the 

personnel of such entity.) The Commission provides this guidance when the matter 

being considered for investigation is unrelated to a violation of NRC regulatory

requirements.
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 6

4. Ensure that staff in each NRC Commissioner’s office receive biennial allegation 

refresher training.

B. Executive Director for Operations (EDO)

1. Establishes policy and procedures for receiving, tracking, processing, and evaluating 

allegations. 

2. Establishes the policy for initiating, assigning priority, and terminating OI investigations. 

3. Resolves differences with regard to the need for and the prioritization of OI 

investigations that the Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, 

State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration and Human Capital (DEDM) cannot 

resolve. 

4. Develops the policy for protecting the identity of allegers, including those allegers 

who have been granted confidential source status under a confidentiality agreement.

5. Approves, as appropriate, the release of the identity of an alleger who has been granted 

confidential source status by the EDO or an office reporting to the EDO.

6. Designates those persons who may grant confidential source status to an alleger or 

who may further delegate the authority to do so. 

7. Approves, as appropriate, the revocation of the confidentiality agreement for an 

alleger who has been granted confidential source status by the EDO or by offices 

reporting to the EDO (see Section IV.C.1 of this handbook). 

8. Approves allegation guidance memoranda (AGMs) providing interim policy guidance, 

as necessary, between revisions of this MD.

C. Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, 

Compliance, Administration, and Human Capital (DEDM)

1. Resolves any difference over need, priority, and schedules for investigations that 

cannot be resolved at the office level with the Director of OI and the director of the 

responsible office. 

2. Oversees the development of agency guidance related to the handling of allegations 

and the initiation, prioritization, and termination of investigations of allegations of 

wrongdoing or discrimination. 

D. Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and the Regional Counsel

1. Provide legal counsel on selected matters regarding interactions with allegers and 

the processing of allegations. 
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 7

2. Provide assistance, as requested, to the action office in preparing notifications to the 

presiding officer in an administrative adjudicatory matter. See the definitions of action 

office and presiding officer in Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook.

3. Provide legal counsel, as requested, on confidentiality agreements, FOIA and 

Privacy Act requests, AGMs, claims of discrimination (prima facie showing 

assessment), determinations of willfulness, determinations regarding the existence of 

a violation, and other matters.

4. Review the regulatory basis, as requested, for investigations to be conducted by OI.

5. Designate a point of contact for providing advice to the Agency Allegation Advisor 

(AAA) on NRC witnesses and positions relevant to DOL litigation (OGC authority only).

6. Review settlement agreements reached through the Early ADR program, a 

licensee’s internal dispute resolution program, as well as those provided to NRC by 

DOL involving claims of discrimination for restrictive language contrary to NRC 

employee protection regulations (OGC authority only) (see 29 CFR Part 24, 

“U.S. Department of Labor Procedures for Handling Discrimination Complaints under 

Federal Employee Protection Statutes,” for discussion of settlements accomplished 

related to discrimination complaints filed with DOL).

E. Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

Investigates complaints of fraud, waste, abuse, or misconduct by NRC staff or 

contractors, as well as complaints of mismanagement of agency programs 

(see 10 CFR 1.12, “Office of the Inspector General”).

F. Chief Information Officer

1. Provides data processing support to maintain the AMS.

2. Provides data processing assistance to the AAA, including continuing development, 

enhancement, and modification of the AMS to meet changing needs.

3. Provides FOIA and Privacy Act policy advice, as necessary, to assist OI and the 

Office of Enforcement (OE) in complying with FOIA and Privacy Act requests. (See 

10 CFR 2.390, “Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding”; 

10 CFR Part 9, Subpart A, “Freedom of Information Act Regulations”; 10 CFR Part 9, 

Subpart B, “Privacy Act Regulations”; and 10 CFR 9.17, “Agency Records Exempt 

from Public Disclosure.”)

G. Director, Office of Enforcement (OE)

1. Appoints the AAA. 

2. Proposes agencywide policy and procedures regarding the processing of allegations 

to the EDO for approval. 
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 8

3. Approves AGMs providing interim guidance on implementation of existing allegation 

program policy, as necessary, between revisions of this MD. 

4. Monitors DOL’s activities as they relate to ERA Section 211. 

5. Administers, or delegates the administration of, enforcement actions taken because 

of substantiated allegation concerns.

6. Coordinates civil enforcement actions, based on investigations involving DOJ. 

7. Administers the Early ADR and Post-Investigation ADR programs.

H. Director, Office of Investigations (OI)

1. Investigates allegations of wrongdoing or discrimination as requested by the 

Commission, on OI’s initiative, or as advised by staff.

2. Implements the policy for initiating, assigning priority, and terminating investigations.

3. Implements, in conjunction with the EDO, the policy for protecting alleger identity 

(including the identity of those allegers who have been granted confidential source 

status pursuant to a confidentiality agreement).

4. Ensures that every effort is made to protect the identity of an alleger unless identity 

disclosure is necessary to conduct a wrongdoing investigation as delineated in 

Section II of this directive.

5. Coordinates investigations with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, 

as necessary.

6. Approves, as appropriate, the revocation of the confidentiality agreement for an 

alleger who has been granted confidential source status originally made by OI (see 

Section IV.C.1 of this handbook). 

7. Seeks Commission guidance before initiating a full investigation relating to the 

character or integrity of an individual in instances in which the character or suitability 

aspects of the matter being considered for investigation are unrelated to a violation 

of NRC regulatory requirements. 

8. Informs the Department of Justice (DOJ) of the results of substantiated investigations and 

provides interface and support, as requested, when DOJ seeks criminal prosecution.

I. Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)

1. Reviews each Agreement State program to ensure that it includes provisions for 

handling allegations and other concerns related to Agreement State licensee activities.

2. Monitors activities conducted by Agreement States regarding allegations and other 

concerns involving Agreement State licensees.
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 9

3. Assesses, on a periodic basis, Agreement State performance in response to allegations 

and other concerns that have been referred to the Agreement States for resolution.

4. Reviews concerns asserting performance problems or wrongdoing on the part of 

Agreement State officials or staff (such matters are not processed as allegations).

5. Supports the Office of International Programs (OIP) with the processing of 

allegations related to that office.

6. Implements the responsibilities noted in Section III.K for all headquarters office 

directors and regional administrators.

J. Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO)

Develops training specific to the allegation program, in collaboration with OE.

K. Office Directors and Regional Administrators

1. Implement the organizational responsibilities noted in Sections III.K.3 and III.K.4 

below related to allegation training and alleger identity protection, which apply to all 

regional and headquarters offices.

2. In addition to the regional offices, the following NRC offices also implement the 

responsibilities noted in Sections III.K.5 through III.K.15 because these offices have 

an increased likelihood of receiving allegations:

(a) OE,

(b) OGC,

(c) OI,

(d) OIP,

(e) NMSS,

(f) The Office of New Reactors (NRO),

(g) The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),

(h) The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), and 

(i) The Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR).

3. Ensure, through initial and periodic refresher training, and through the development 

of guidance documentation, as appropriate, that staff are aware of and follow the 

NRC’s policy and procedures for receiving, tracking, processing, and evaluating 

allegations. Ensure that staff in the regional offices and the following headquarters 

offices receive allegation refresher training biennially: 

(a) NMSS, 
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 10

(b) NRO, 

(c) NRR, 

(d) NSIR, 

(e) The Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA), 

(f) OE, 

(g) OEDO, 

(h) OGC, 

(i) OI, 

(j) OIP, 

(k) The Office of Public Affairs (OPA), 

(l) RES, and 

(m)The Office of the Secretary (SECY).

4. Ensure that all staff protect the identity of allegers (including those allegers who have 

been granted confidential source status). Implement the Commission’s policy 

statement on confidentiality and approve confidentiality agreements as delegated by 

the EDO or the Director, OI, in accordance with Commission policy. 

5. Appoint an Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) and establish an Allegation Review 

Board (ARB) for each allegation, as appropriate (see definitions of OAC and ARB in 

Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook). (Note: OGC, OI, OE, and RES are not 

required to appoint an OAC as they are not considered action offices for the 

purposes of this MD.) Other headquarters offices should appoint an OAC and 

establish an ARB if it is deemed that their mission so requires. After receiving an 

allegation, staff in headquarters offices that do not have an OAC shall transfer the 

allegations to an assigned, responsible OAC in an action office, who shall coordinate 

and track the actions taken in response to the allegation (e.g., NSIR-related and 

NRO-related allegation processing is coordinated by the NRR OAC, and OIP-related 

allegation processing is coordinated by the NMSS OAC).

6. Consult with the AAA for the development of OAC position descriptions.

7. Ensure the availability of staff to receive and assess incoming allegations, prepare 

for and participate in ARBs, implement allegation evaluation actions prescribed by 

the ARB (including, but not limited to, technical review and inspection effort, and for 

OI, through the conduct of investigations), and provide input and support for 

allegation closure. (See Section II.I.1 of this handbook for additional detail related to 

ARB participants and functions.)
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 11

8. Ensure that allegation-related information is only provided to individuals with a 

need-to-know. In addition to the notification of staff that are assigned allegation 

followup action, the responsible NRC manager, in coordination with the OAC, will 

ensure that resident inspectors are informed about open allegations and past 

allegation trends related to their assigned facility, and that non-resident inspectors 

are informed about open allegations and past allegation trends pertaining to areas to 

be inspected, and other areas as appropriate.

9. As the action office, determine the safety significance and generic safety implications 

of the allegation, if any, and evaluate the allegation appropriately and as promptly as 

resources allow and before any applicable licensing decision date. Ensure that 

technical allegation concerns that have generic safety implications are transferred to 

the OAC for the responsible headquarters office for action and disseminated to other 

affected regional and headquarters offices for information, as appropriate.

10. Ensure that safety-significant allegations are promptly reviewed and take any actions 

necessary to address an OSI. 

11. Ensure that allegations concerning NRC licensees, license or certificate applicants, 

or other affected organizations are reviewed for possible notification of the presiding 

officer in any related administrative adjudicatory matter and transferred, if applicable, 

to the responsible headquarters office. The responsible headquarters office will make 

the notification when required. 

12. Review the status and resolution of any allegations that are related to a proposed 

licensing or escalated enforcement action to determine their effect. 

13. Approve the release of an alleger’s identity (unless the alleger has been granted 

confidential source status) when circumstances compel the NRC to do so

(see Section II.F.12 of this handbook).

14. Ensure that OI is promptly informed if an allegation involves suspected wrongdoing, 

except when the suspected wrongdoing is on the part of NRC employees or NRC 

contractors (Issues regarding suspected improper conduct by NRC employees or 

NRC contractors will be brought directly or through appropriate NRC management to 

the attention of OIG. Such issues are not processed as allegations. See 

Section II.J.4(i) of this handbook). 

15. Provide technical assistance, as requested, to OI for investigating allegations.

16. As the action office, monitor OI investigations of allegations to ensure that the 

investigative priority and schedule meet regulatory needs.

17. Ensure that a program self-assessment is performed in alternate years when the AAA 

is not performing an allegation program assessment at the regional or headquarters 

office. (Note: OI, OE, OGC, and RES are not required to perform biennial 

self-assessments as they are not considered action offices for the purposes of this MD.)
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 12

18. Ensure that the RSAO monitors and assesses, as appropriate, Agreement State 

responses to allegations and other concerns that have been referred to the 

Agreement States (regional administrator responsibility only).

19. Ensure that electronic processing of allegation-related information is conducted in 

accordance with the guidance provided in MD 12.5, “NRC Cybersecurity Program.”

L. Agency Allegation Advisor (AAA)

1. Oversees implementation of the agency allegation program as set forth in this MD.

2. Develops and implements policy and procedures related to allegations, provides this 

guidance to the regional and headquarters offices, and maintains this MD and the 

Allegation Manual.

3. Issues interim guidance in the form of AGMs, as appropriate, between revisions of 

this MD. 

4. Serves as liaison with outside agencies and other NRC offices on allegation-related 

matters. 

5. Ensures that the AMS database accommodates NRC staff needs to track allegations. 

Works with the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) to provide AMS 

enhancements to satisfy new demands and also works with the regional and 

headquarters offices on emerging uses of AMS data. 

6. Provides or coordinates responses to assigned principal correspondence. This 

includes coordinating responses to inquiries from the following:

(a) Commission or other NRC offices,

(b) Congress (in coordination with the Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA)),

(c) The public, and

(d) Other external sources.

7. Helps develop strategy for dealing with a licensee having a significant discrimination 

allegation history through a thorough review of related documentation, including the 

results of OI and DOL investigations of discrimination allegations.

8. Supports the regional and headquarters offices through the provision of periodic 

training on allegation handling and sensitivity.

9. Performs a biennial assessment of allegation activities conducted by each regional 

office and specified headquarters offices. (Guidance regarding the scope of and 

evaluation criteria for the biennial allegation program assessment is located in the 

Allegation Manual.) 

10. Provides an annual report to the EDO with an analysis of any allegation trends. 
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 13

11. Conducts an OAC counterpart meeting at least annually, which will include in its 

agenda, a discussion of the results of the most recent AAA assessments and 

regional or headquarters office self-assessments related to the conduct of the 

allegation program. 

12. Serves, with OGC support, as the agency point-of-contact to assist persons 

requesting NRC information, positions, or witnesses relevant to DOL litigation. 

Refers requests for assistance to the appropriate contacts within NRC for review in 

accordance with applicable regulations and Commission policy. 

13. Provides input to the agency efforts to evaluate whether licensees are providing a 

safety conscious work environment (SCWE) through the trending of allegations and 

insight provided by reviews of licensee employee concerns programs, licensee 

self-assessments, and NRC inspector observations. The AAA provides input to the 

regional offices in preparation for the Reactor Oversight Program (ROP) or 

construction ROP (cROP) end-of-cycle review meetings at which the SCWE 

cross-cutting area is discussed (see NRC IMC 0305, “Operating Reactor 

Assessment Program” and NRC IMC 2505, “Periodic Assessment of Construction 

Inspection Program Results”), and at ROP or cROP mid-cycle and other times on an 

as-requested basis. Provides similar input for a non-reactor facility (e.g., fuel facility, 

materials licensee, vendor) for which NRC receives a high volume of allegations.

M. Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC)

1. Serves as the administrative point-of-contact for the processing and tracking of 

allegations assigned to the regional and headquarters offices.

2. Administers the action office’s allegation program as set forth in the following:

(a) MD 8.8,

(b) AGM,

(c) Allegation Manual, and

(d) Applicable regional or headquarters office implementing procedures.

3. Establishes and maintains files, prepares reports, and schedules and participates in 

ARB meetings.

4. Prepares and distributes ARB meeting minutes and coordinates allegation-related 

activities with the following, as appropriate:

(a) Management and responsible staff,

(b) OI,

(c) OGC, and

(d) OACs of the other action offices.
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 14

5. Ensures that the allegation file contains all documentation provided by the alleger 

and all documents used in making decisions regarding the allegation. The OAC may 

exclude from the hard-copy allegation file documentation that would be too 

cumbersome to include if it is referenced and easily retrievable. If the documentation 

that is too cumbersome to include in the file has been recorded on electronic media 

(e.g., disk, flash drive), it may be retained in the allegation file in that form.

6. Enters and tracks allegation activities in the AMS from receipt to closure. 

7. Participates in OAC counterpart meetings.

8. Responds to FOIA and Privacy Act requests related to allegations.

9. Ensures that management and responsible staff are informed of allegations under 

their purview. Provides support to the responsible manager, such that the 

responsible manager is able to inform the resident inspectors and other inspectors, 

as appropriate, about open allegations, ARB-assigned actions, and past allegation 

trends related to areas to be inspected.

10. Responds to requests from project managers concerning allegations that involve 

topics that are also the subject of petitions filed in accordance with10 CFR 2.206, 

“Requests for Actions Under This Part.”

11. Ensures that allegation-related correspondence and other staff-generated 

documentation related to allegations (with the exception of OI documentation) is 

consistent with the requirements of this MD. 

12. Ensures that actions taken to evaluate allegations and effect allegation closure are 

properly documented and appropriately address the concerns provided. 

13. Provides, or supports staff in providing information to an alleger regarding the 

evaluation of his or her allegation, as appropriate, unless notifying the alleger would 

interfere with ongoing OI, OE, OIG, or DOJ activities or be detrimental to the 

protection of sensitive and security-related information.

14. Prepares or coordinates the preparation of correspondence with the alleger as 

indicated in Sections II.J.1, II.K, II.L, and II.M. of this handbook.

15. Takes responsible steps, in coordination with regional management and OGC, to 

facilitate DOL’s investigation of discrimination concerns by assisting DOL in obtaining 

access to licensed facilities and any necessary security clearances. 

IV. APPLICABILITY

The policy and guidance in this MD applies to all NRC employees and NRC contractors,

except employees and contractors of OIG. OIG has internal procedures in place to ensure 

that allegations received by OIG are transferred to the appropriate action office for 

processing. Matters concerning NRC staff or contractor misconduct under OIG purview are 
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 15

not processed as allegations in accordance with this MD. Consistent with Section II.J.4(i) of 

this handbook, the agency refers such issues or concerns to OIG for its evaluation. Staff 

requirements for reporting complaints of misconduct by NRC staff or contractors, as well as 

complaints of mismanagement of agency programs to OIG, are provided in detail in MD 7.4, 

“Reporting Suspected Wrongdoing and Processing OIG referrals.”

V. DIRECTIVE HANDBOOK

Directive Handbook 8.8 contains policy and program guidance for the management and 

processing of allegations. OE maintains an Allegation Manual containing more detailed 

discussion of program practices so that users will have access to the latest practice 

guidance and reference information.

VI. REFERENCES

Code of Federal Regulations

10 CFR 1.12, “Office of the Inspector General.”

10 CFR 2.206, “Requests for Action Under This Subpart.”

10 CFR 2.390, “Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding.”

10 CFR Part 9, Subpart A, “Freedom of Information Act Regulations.”

10 CFR Part 9, Subpart B, “Privacy Act Regulations.”

10 CFR Part 9, Subpart D, “Production or Disclosure in Response to Subpoenas or 

Demands of Courts or Other Authorities.”

10 CFR 9.17, “Agency Records Exempt From Public Disclosure.”

10 CFR 19.15(b), “Consultation with Workers During Inspections.”

10 CFR 19.16(a), “Requests by Workers for Inspections.”

10 CFR 19.20, 30.7, 40.7, 50.7, 52.5, 60.9, 61.9, 63.9, 70.7, 71.9, 72.10, 76.7, 

“Employee Protection,” and 150.20, “Recognition of Agreement State Licenses.”

29 CFR Part 24, “U.S. Department of Labor Procedures for Handling Discrimination 

Complaints Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes.”

44 CFR Part 353, “Memorandum of Understanding Between Federal Emergency 

Management Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 16

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Documents

Allegation Guidance Memoranda (AGM)2

—

AGM-2011-001, “Late Filed Allegations,” November 20, 2011.

AGM 2012-001, “NRC Chilling Effect Letters,” March 9, 2012.

Allegation Manual, available at http://www.internal.nrc.gov/OE.

Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM) 2015-001, Revision 1, “Documentation of 

Security-Related Information in Publicly Available Cover Letters Related to Enforcement 

Documents,” June 2, 2015.

Enforcement Manual, available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/guidance.html.

Enforcement Policy, available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html.

Generic Communications--Information Notices (IN), Regulatory Information Summaries (RIS)

IN 84-08, “10 CFR 50.7, ‘Employee Protection.’”

IN 98-33, “NRC Regulations Prohibit Agreements that Restrict or Discourage an 

Employee from Participating in Protected Activities.”

RIS-02-007, “Clarification of NRC Requirements Applicable to Worker Fatigue 

and Self-Declarations of Fitness-for-Duty.”

RIS-05-018, “Guidance for Establishing and Maintaining a Safety Conscious 

Work Environment.”

RIS-05-026, “Control of Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information 

Related to Nuclear Power Reactors.”

RIS-05-031, “Control of Security-Related Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information Handled by Individuals, Firms, and Entities Subject to NRC 

Regulation of the Use of Source, Byproduct, and Special Nuclear Material.”

 2 Allegation guidance memoranda (AGMs) provide interim guidance to the NRC staff. These AGMs 

have been provided as reference to reflect interim guidance issued since the last MD revision. These 

AGMs have been incorporated into this MD.
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 17

Internal Commission Procedures (ICPs), available at http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/policy-making/internal.html. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) and the Department of Labor (DOL) (63 FR 57324-57325), 

October 27, 1998.

NMSS Procedure SA-400, “Management of Allegations,” January 22, 2001.

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 0305, “Operating Reactor Assessment Program.”

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1007, “Interfacing Activities Between Regional Offices

of NRC and OSHA.”

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1120, “Preliminary Notifications.”

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2505, “Periodic Assessment of Construction Inspection 

Program Results.”

NRC Management Directives—

3.1, “Freedom of Information Act.”

3.2, “Privacy Act.”

5.6, “Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP).”

5.9, “Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs.”

7.4, “Reporting Suspected Wrongdoing and Processing OIG Referrals.”

8.11, “Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions.”

9.19, “Organization and Functions, Office of Enforcement.”

10.160, “Open Door Policy.”

12.2, “NRC Classified Information Security Program.”

12.4, “NRC Telecommunications Systems Security Program.”

12.5, “NRC Cybersecurity Program.”

12.6, “NRC Sensitive Unclassified Information Security Program.”

12.7, “NRC Safeguards Information Security Program.”

NRC Policy Statement, “Investigations, Inspections, and Adjudicatory Proceedings,”

49 FR 36032, September 13, 1984.

NRC Policy Statement, “Handling of Late Allegations,” 50 FR 11030, March 19, 1985.
MD 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 18

NRC Policy Statement, “Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety 

Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation,” 61 FR 24336, May 14, 1996.

NRC Policy Statement, “Protecting the Identity of Allegers and Confidential Sources,”

61 FR 25924, May 23, 1996.

NRC Policy Statement, “NRC Enforcement Policy; Alternative Dispute Resolution,”

69 FR 50219, August 13, 2004.

NRO TAR Process Flow Chart, April 23, 2014, available at 

http://epm.nrc.gov/inspection/cip/TAR-site/default.aspx. 

NRR Office Instruction COM-106, Revision 4, “Control of Task Interface Agreements,”

January 6, 2014.

NSIR Office Procedure ADM-113, Revision 0, “Report on Interaction Process,”

November 2011.

NUREG-1499, “Report of the Review Team for Reassessment of NRC’s Program for 

Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation,” January 7, 1994 (hard copy retained by OE).

NUREG-1556, Volume 20, Section 4.14, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials 

Licensees: Guidance About Administrative Licensing Procedures,” December 2000, 

available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1556/v20/.

NUREG/BR-0240, “Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC,” available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0240/.

NUREG/BR-0313, “Pre-Investigation ADR Program,” available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0313/.

Office of Investigations, Investigations Procedures Manual, Revised August 2006.

Yellow Announcement YA-05-0077, “Policy Revision: NRC Policy and Procedures for 

Handling, Marking, and Protecting Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information 

(SUNSI),” October 26, 2005 (ML051220278).

United States Code

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, Section 211, “Employee 

Protection” (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.).

Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552, 

5 U.S.C. 552a).

Crimes and Criminal Procedure (18 U.S.C.).
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DIRECTIVE HANDBOOK (DH)

DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DT-16-05

Volume 8: Licensee Oversight Programs 

Approved By: Victor M. McCree

Executive Director for Operations

Date Approved: January 29, 2016

Expiration Date: January 29, 2021

Issuing Office: Office of Enforcement

Concerns Resolution Branch

Contact Name: Lisamarie L. Jarriel

301-415-8529

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Management Directive (MD) 8.8 is being revised to reflect minor editorial changes and 

changes in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s policies and procedures for handling 

allegations associated with NRC-regulated activities to include the following: 

• Changes in organizational responsibility (consolidation of the Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs and the Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, and centralization of training in the Office of the Chief 

Human Capital Officer), required training, and position titles (Office of Investigations (OI) 

Field Office Director (FOD) to OI Special Agent in Charge (SAIC), Deputy Executive 

Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs 

(DEDMRT) to Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, 

Compliance, Administration, and Human Capital (DEDM));

• Changes prescribed in allegation guidance memoranda (AGMs) issued since the last 

revision of the management directive in December 2010 (specifically AGM 2011-001, 

“Late Filed Allegations,” dated November 20, 2011, and AGM 2012-001, “NRC 

Chilling Effect Letters,” dated March 9, 2012); 

• Changes prescribed by Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM) 2015-001, 

Revision 1, “Documentation of Security-Related Information in Publicly Available 

Cover Letters Related to Enforcement Documents,” dated June 2, 2015, which relates 

to the amount of security-related information that may be publicly released (see 

Section II.L.3(d) of this handbook);
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 2

• The responsibility for regional administrators and specified headquarters office 

directors to assure that all employees within their office or region receive allegation 

process refresher training biennially. The biennial allegation refresher training 

requirement will also apply to staff in the offices of each Commissioner (see 

Section III.K of this directive and Section II.R of this handbook); 

• The responsibility for headquarters office directors and regional administrators to 

consult with the Agency Allegation Advisor for the development of Office Allegation 

Coordinator position descriptions (see Section III.K of this directive);

• Clarification that the Allegation Review Board (ARB) chairperson makes the final 

decisions regarding the actions proposed during the ARB meeting and provides final 

approval for requested actions (see Section II.I.2(d) of this handbook); and 

• New language noting that in instances involving unsubstantiated OI cases, when no 

enforcement action is intended subsequent to an OI investigation, or when NRC 

decides to wait for completion of the Department of Labor process before taking 

enforcement action, the alleger will be provided with a short summary of the results of 

the OI investigation and the licensee will be provided with either the OI investigation 

synopsis or other appropriate summary describing the staff’s conclusions regarding 

the results of the OI investigation (see Section II.L.4 of this handbook).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. OVERVIEW OF THE NRC ALLEGATION PROGRAM......................................................4

A. Allegation and Alleger Definitions .................................................................................4

B. Evaluation of an Allegation ...........................................................................................4

C. Protection of Alleger Identity.........................................................................................5

II. ALLEGATION PROCESS..................................................................................................5

A. Methods Through Which an Allegation May Be Received.............................................5

B. Allegation Intake...........................................................................................................5

C. Matters of Potential Wrongdoing Identified by NRC Staff..............................................8

D. Concerns Involving an Agreement State Licensee........................................................9

E. Concerns Involving Agreement State Oversight............................................................9

F. Alleger Identity Protection.............................................................................................9

G. Discrimination Concerns and Department of Labor (DOL) Information .......................14

H. Processing the Received Allegation............................................................................15

I. Allegation Review Board (ARB)..................................................................................20

J. Allegation Evaluation ..................................................................................................24

K. Periodic Status Letters to Allegers..............................................................................33
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 3

L. Allegation Closure ......................................................................................................33

M. Alleger Response After Closure..................................................................................38

N. NRC Response to Fears of Retaliation .......................................................................38

O. Allegation Management System (AMS) ......................................................................39

P. Handling Allegations That May Impact Licensing or Certification 

Decisions or Allegations That Are Filed Late ..............................................................40

Q. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests.............................................................40

R. Training of the NRC Staff............................................................................................41

S. Allegation Guidance Memorandum (AGM) .................................................................41

III. NRC CONTACTS FOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) INFORMATION...................41

A. Requests by Individuals or by DOL.............................................................................41

B. Requests for Reports From OI....................................................................................42

C. Production or Disclosure in Response to Subpoenas or Demands of 

Courts.........................................................................................................................42

D. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act ...................................................42

E. Amicus Curiae Briefs ..................................................................................................42

F. Correspondence.........................................................................................................42

IV. GRANTING AND REVOKING CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE STATUS ...............................42

A. General ......................................................................................................................43

B. Granting Confidential Source Status...........................................................................43

C. Revocation of Confidential Source Status...................................................................45

D. Withdrawal of Confidential Source Status...................................................................46

E. Official Disclosures .....................................................................................................46

V. INITIATING, PRIORITIZING, AND TERMINATING INVESTIGATIONS BY THE 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) ................................................................................48

A. Staff Requirement To Advise OI of Matters of Potential Wrongdoing..........................48

B. Submittal of Information to OI .....................................................................................48

C. Resolution of Differences............................................................................................49

D. Initiation of an Investigation by OI...............................................................................50

E. Termination of Investigations......................................................................................51

F. Resolution of Matters Returned by OI Without Investigation .......................................51

VI. GLOSSARY.....................................................................................................................51
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 4

I. OVERVIEW OF THE NRC ALLEGATION PROGRAM

This section provides general information related to the program that manages the receipt, 

evaluation, and closure of allegations received by the NRC. Additional information regarding 

the implementation of the NRC Allegation Program under the requirements of this handbook 

can be found in the Allegation Manual, which is a separate document maintained by the 

Office of Enforcement (OE).

A. Allegation and Alleger Definitions

1. An “allegation” is a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy 

associated with NRC-regulated activities, the validity of which has not been established. 

Potential licensee wrongdoing identified by NRC staff that prompts an investigation by 

the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) is also processed as an allegation. A more detailed 

definition including exceptions is provided in Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook. 

2. An “alleger” is any individual who or organization that submits an allegation to the

NRC or who provides information in a public forum that is recognized as an 

allegation involving a nuclear or radiological safety matter or possible wrongdoing 

related to a nuclear or radiological safety matter.

B. Evaluation of an Allegation

1. There is no threshold for the acceptance of a concern that meets the definition of an 

allegation provided in Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook.

2. The type and amount of effort required to evaluate and close an allegation is 

determined by the Allegation Review Board (ARB) on a case-by-case basis.

3. Allegation evaluation is accomplished through any combination of the following:

(a) Technical review;

(b) Inspection;

(c) Evaluation of information requested from the affected licensee, or another NRC 

regional or headquarters office; or

(d) Obtaining the results of investigations or evaluations conducted by—

(i) OI,

(ii) The Department of Justice (DOJ),

(iii) The Department of Labor (DOL),

(iv) A State agency, or

(v) Another Federal agency.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 5

C. Protection of Alleger Identity

1. Alleger identity protection is an important aspect of the program. All reasonable efforts 

are taken not to disclose an alleger’s identity outside the NRC (unless the NRC is 

compelled to do so for any of the reasons described in Section II.F.12(b) of this 

handbook), and an alleger’s identity is only revealed within the agency on a 

need-to-know basis.

2. NRC staff is responsible for controlling documents that could reveal an alleger’s 

identity, using applicable allegation documentation control guidance.

II. ALLEGATION PROCESS

A. Methods Through Which an Allegation May Be Received

1. Any NRC employee may receive or recognize an allegation.

2. An alleger’s concern may be made known to the NRC by several methods, for 

example:

(a) In person,

(b) By telephone,

(c) By e-mail, or

(d) In print.

3. An allegation also may be recognized by an NRC staff member in information 

provided in a public forum including, but not limited to—

(a) Television,

(b) Radio,

(c) Newspaper,

(d) Internet, or

(e) Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, blog).

B. Allegation Intake

1. If an allegation is received in person or by telephone, the NRC staff will be 

courteous, professional, and responsive to the alleger.

2. All communications with the alleger shall be documented in the allegation file.

3. Off-the-Record Information 

(a) NRC does not accept “off-the-record” information from allegers.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 6

(b) NRC staff advises an alleger who attempts to provide information 

“off-the-record” that all information received by the NRC is accepted officially 

and appropriately acted upon.

4. Obtaining Information from an Alleger

(a) A staff member who receives an allegation in person or by telephone will attempt to 

obtain as much information as possible about the alleger’s concern(s) so that safety 

significance may be determined, and to facilitate the NRC review of the concern(s).

(b) If the alleger’s name and contact information is not initially provided, an effort 

should be made to obtain it so that feedback may be provided to the alleger and 

so that the alleger may be subsequently contacted if additional information is 

needed. Allegation process identity protection provisions should be provided to 

the alleger (see Sections II.F.4 and II.F.12 of this handbook).

(c) If the alleger is willing to provide his or her name and contact information, he or 

she is informed that the NRC will provide feedback regarding the allegation by 

way of the responsible regional or headquarters office, i.e., the action office.

(d) If an allegation is received by telephone, and the alleger is unwilling to provide 

contact information, the staff member receiving the allegation should record the 

telephone number, or name, or both from caller identification (caller ID), if 

available. If, after the NRC’s identity protection policy is explained to the alleger, 

the alleger still declines to provide contact information, the alleger should be 

informed that the caller ID information has been recorded by the NRC for future 

reference, if needed. 

(i) Specifically, the NRC staff member should pose a question to the alleger 

similar to the following:

“I understand and respect that you want to remain anonymous, but I should 

inform you that I can observe (or I can obtain) the phone number from which 

you are calling. In the rare case that we need to contact you for additional 

information about your concern(s) to ensure adequate public health and 

safety, would it be appropriate for us to call this number?”

(ii) If the caller indicates that it is acceptable for the NRC to call the number in the 

future, the caller should be asked whether the number on caller ID is his or 

her mobile phone, a home phone, or a place of employment, when this 

information has not been disclosed during the phone call.

(iii) In this instance, the allegation receipt documentation should clearly document 

that the alleger wished to remain anonymous, that the NRC used caller ID to 

obtain the contact information, and the alleger’s response to the above 

questions. Note: Any indication that this practice is negatively impacting the 

allegation program should be reported to the Agency Allegation Advisor (AAA). 

.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 7

5. Allegations Involving Security Concerns

(a) If the alleger is involved in security-related activities or has security concerns, the 

alleger is to be reminded of the proper protocol for transmitting classified 

information or Safeguards Information (SGI). See Management Directive 

(MD) 12.2, “NRC Classified Information Security Program”;

MD 12.4, ”NRC Telecommunications Systems Security Program”;

MD 12.5, ”NRC Cybersecurity Program”; MD 12.6, “Sensitive Unclassified 

Information Security Program”; NRC Yellow Announcement YA-05-0077, “Policy 

Revision: NRC Policy and Procedures for Handling, Marking, and Protecting 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI),” issued on 

October 26, 2005, (ML051220278); and MD 12.7, “NRC Safeguards Information 

Security Program,” for additional details.

(b) If a setting is inappropriate for transmitting security-related information, separate 

arrangements will be made to enable proper transmittal.

6. If the Alleger Requests No Contact with the NRC

(a) On occasion, an alleger will provide contact information but request no further 

contact with the NRC. When this occurs during the intake process involving 

allegations received in person or by telephone, the employee receiving the 

allegation should explain the advantages of continued involvement in the 

allegation process (i.e., to facilitate the NRC’s understanding of the concerns 

raised, to obtain additional information as needed, to afford the alleger the 

opportunity to assess and provide feedback regarding NRC’s conclusions, and 

to encourage the alleger’s continued involvement).

(b) If the request for no contact is made in writing, or it is not clear that the NRC 

employee receiving the verbal contact has explained the advantages of the alleger’s 

continued involvement in the allegation process, then the responsible branch chief, 

the Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC), or other appropriate NRC staff member will, 

as requested by the ARB, attempt additional contact with the alleger.

(i) Such communication should be made verbally, if possible, preferably not at 

the alleger’s place of employment.

(ii) All communications with the alleger shall be documented in the allegation file.

(iii) During this discussion, the NRC staff member should remain respectful of the 

alleger’s views and comfort level with remaining engaged in the allegation process.

(c) The purpose of this additional attempt to contact the alleger is as follows: 

(i) To obtain additional information related to the allegation, if needed;
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 8

(ii) To inform the alleger that the NRC is considering a Request for Information 

(RFI) from the licensee, if appropriate, and determine whether the alleger 

would have any objection to the NRC issuing an RFI to the licensee; and

(iii) To explain the advantages of continued involvement in the allegation process 

and to encourage the alleger’s continued involvement.

(d) If Alleger Continues to Reject Contact with the NRC

(i) Sometimes, the alleger will continue to reject contact with the NRC even after 

the additional contact from the NRC is made (see Sections II.B.6(b) and 

II.B.6(c) of this handbook). 

(ii) In these cases, the contacting staff member should encourage the alleger to, 

at a minimum, accept allegation closure documentation from the NRC 

regarding his or her concerns so that he or she can review the NRC’s 

conclusions and provide feedback, if desired.

(iii) If the alleger reaffirms his or her desire not to participate in the allegation 

process, the agency shall honor the request and not provide the alleger with 

an acknowledgment letter or a closure letter. In this way, the NRC will not 

negatively impact the alleger’s willingness to use the allegation process in the 

future. In this circumstance, an additional attempt to contact the alleger will 

not be made unless the NRC determines that additional information is needed 

to ensure adequate public health and safety.

(e) If the additional contact with the alleger is not accomplished, the basis will be 

documented in the allegation file. Specifically, the allegation file will include—

(i) Documentation that the NRC was unable to contact the alleger; or

(ii) The ARB record documenting an ARB decision not to attempt an additional 

contact with the alleger.

C. Matters of Potential Wrongdoing Identified by NRC Staff

During inspection or assessment of licensee activities, NRC staff may identify matters 

that involve potential wrongdoing on the part of licensee employees or licensee contract 

employees. These matters, although not from a source external to the NRC, are also 

tracked as allegations if they prompt investigation by OI. This facilitates action office 

monitoring of related OI followup. Any allegation from an external source that asserts a 

failure to meet requirements may have the potential for being willful, thus staff must be 

alert to any implicit issues and indicators of wrongdoing when reviewing such allegations 

and identify them for consideration by the allegation program, if not identified by the 

alleger as a potential wrongdoing matter.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 9

D. Concerns Involving an Agreement State Licensee

1. An Agreement State is a State that has entered into an agreement with the NRC 

whereby the NRC has relinquished authority and those States have assumed 

regulatory authority over certain byproduct, source, and small quantities of special 

nuclear material. Individuals who contact the NRC with concerns about Agreement 

State licensees are often unaware of the Agreement State Program (see 

Section 247b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2011)). However, once the 

Agreement State Program is explained, most individuals indicate a willingness to 

contact and be contacted directly by Agreement State personnel about the 

evaluation of their concern(s). These concerns are provided to the appropriate 

Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO) for referral to the Agreement State and 

are not processed as allegations (see MD 5.6, “Integrated Materials Performance 

Evaluation Program (IMPEP),” and MD 5.9, “Adequacy and Compatibility of 

Agreement State Programs”).

2. If the individual is unwilling to contact, or to have his or her identity disclosed to, the 

Agreement State, the NRC will still refer the concern(s) to the Agreement State, 

without providing the individual’s identity, and request a response. These concerns 

are entered into the allegation process and tracked to closure.

3. Detailed guidance related to the handling of Agreement State licensee concerns is 

provided in the Allegation Manual.

E. Concerns Involving Agreement State Oversight

1. Concerns involving State regulatory bodies that oversee the activities of Agreement 

State licensees are not processed as allegations and include—

(a) Concerns regarding the performance of State regulatory bodies or their 

personnel; and

(b) Concerns regarding potential wrongdoing committed by State regulatory bodies 

or their personnel.

2. If an NRC employee receives or is informed about a matter discussed in Section II.E.1 

above, the NRC employee should promptly forward the matter to the Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) for evaluation outside the allegation process. 

See NMSS Procedure SA-400, “Management of Allegations,” for information regarding 

the processing of concerns involving Agreement State oversight.

F. Alleger Identity Protection 

1. An alleger will be informed of the degree to which his or her identity can be protected 

by NRC (see Sections II.F.4 through II.F.12 of this handbook).

2. If an allegation is received in person or by telephone, information about alleger 

identity protection should be provided during the initial discussion, if possible.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 10

3. If an allegation is received by other means (e.g., letter, electronic mail), and the 

alleger’s identity and contact information is known, the OAC, or other designated 

individual will notify the alleger by telephone (if possible), letter, or electronic mail of 

the degree to which his or her identity can be protected.

(a) This action is taken so that an alleger does not incorrectly assume that his or her 

identity is protected by the NRC under all circumstances.

(b) For an alleger who has been granted confidential source status, identity protection 

is also referred to as confidentiality. See Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook 

for definitions of identity protection, confidentiality, and confidential source, and 

Section IV, “Granting and Revoking Confidential Source Status,” of this handbook 

for specific detail related to the granting of confidential source status.

4. The NRC will take all reasonable efforts not to disclose an alleger’s identity.

(a) An alleger’s identity, or information that would reveal an alleger’s identity, is not 

normally distributed or discussed among NRC staff. If discussion of alleger 

identity is necessary to evaluate an allegation, the discussion shall only involve 

staff with a need to know.

(b) Staff should be sensitive to the location of allegation-related discussions to

provide reasonable assurance that sensitive allegation information is not 

disclosed to staff without a need-to-know or to non-NRC personnel.

(c) As a general rule, documents containing the alleger’s identity and information 

that could identify the alleger are maintained in the official allegation file or 

related OI investigation files, or both.

(i) When practical, the alleger’s name and other identifying information should be 

redacted from allegation documents before they are distributed outside of the 

official allegation file or related OI investigation file to assigned staff. Note: For 

example, it may be impractical to redact the transcript of a lengthy OI interview 

with an alleger that would repeat the alleger’s name many times.

(ii) Allegation file documentation must be appropriately controlled as noted in 

Sections II.H.3(b), II.H.3(c), and II.H.4 of this handbook. 

(d) OI is always made aware of an alleger’s identity if an allegation includes a 

potential wrongdoing or discrimination concern, and is otherwise informed of the 

alleger’s identity as deemed appropriate. 

5. The responsible NRC manager will—

(a) Provide allegation-related information to staff who are assigned allegation 

followup action, including alleger identifying information if necessary to evaluate 

the allegation, after coordinating with the OAC. 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 11

(b) Inform resident inspectors about open allegations and past allegation trends 

related to their assigned facility. Inform non-resident inspectors about open 

allegations and past allegation trends pertaining to areas to be inspected and 

other areas, as appropriate. This will afford inspectors with an opportunity to 

provide information to the responsible manager and the OAC if the inspection 

effort develops information applicable to other allegation concerns not directly 

related to the areas to be inspected.

(c) Ensure that the allegation-related information does not include the identity of the 

alleger when provided to resident and non-resident inspectors who have not 

been assigned to evaluate the allegation.

6. NRC practice is to neither confirm nor deny to a licensee or the public that an 

individual is an alleger, except when compelled to disclose an alleger’s identity for 

any of the reasons indicated in Section II.F.12 of this handbook. The following 

provisions apply to protecting the identity of all allegers, including those who have 

been granted confidential source status:

(a) Inspections and inspection-related documents should address relevant issues 

without acknowledging that an issue was raised in the context of an allegation.

(b) Approval of the applicable regional administrator or headquarters office director 

is required if a licensee is to be informed that an inspection activity is related to 

an allegation, such as when a worker requests an inspection under 10 CFR 

19.16(a), “Requests by Workers for Inspections.”

7. NRC-generated documents related to an allegation are not to include information 

that could identify an alleger, with the exception of allegation intake documentation, 

OI reports, OI interview transcripts, and letters addressed to the alleger.

8. Information identifying the alleger may be released to the licensee when the alleger 

has clearly indicated no objection to being identified and releasing the alleger’s 

identity is necessary to evaluate the allegation, or if the NRC determines that the 

release is necessary to support the agency’s mission.

9. When information identifying the alleger is released to the licensee—

(a) The identity of the alleger should normally be provided to the licensee verbally 

rather than in a letter requesting information from the licensee.

(b) Written documentation of the alleger’s lack of objection to the identity release and 

the agency’s reasoning for the release will be noted in the related allegation file.

10. Before information generated by OI is released to the public, OI will review and 

redact information that could identify an alleger.

11. In rare circumstances, the ARB might consider publicly identifying an issue as an 

allegation (see Section II.I.2(a)(x) of this handbook).
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 12

12. Limitations on Alleger Identity Protection

(a) All allegers (including those who have been granted confidential source status) 

are informed of the limitations on the NRC’s ability to protect their identity—

(i) During the initial receipt of the allegation, or other discussion with the alleger 

before the issuance of an acknowledgment letter, if possible; or

(ii) In an acknowledgment letter (after the initial receipt of the allegation); or

(iii) In a confidentiality agreement (if the alleger has been granted confidential 

source status).

(b) The alleger is informed that the NRC may be compelled to disclose his or her 

identity under one or more of the following circumstances:

(i) Disclosure is necessary because of an overriding safety issue (OSI).

(ii) Disclosure is necessary pursuant to an order of a court or NRC adjudicatory 

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

NRC responsibilities under law or public trust.

(iii) Disclosure is necessary to support a hearing on an enforcement matter.

(iv) Disclosure is necessary to further a wrongdoing investigation.

(v) The alleger has taken actions that are inconsistent with and override the 

purpose of protecting the alleger’s identity.

(vi) Disclosure is mandated by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

(see Section II.Q of this handbook).

(c) The NRC may reveal an alleger’s identity outside the agency if the alleger has 

clearly stated no objection to being identified. However, this course of action is 

not normally taken unless releasing the alleger’s identity is necessary to evaluate 

the allegation, or if the NRC determines that the release is necessary to support

the agency’s mission.

(d) For allegations involving discrimination, the alleger is informed that the NRC will 

disclose his or her identity to the licensee, the alleged discriminating entity (if 

not the licensee), or to both. Otherwise, it would be impossible to pursue such 

an investigation. 

(e) For allegations involving wrongdoing, the alleger is informed that his or her 

identity may be disclosed at OI’s discretion to pursue the investigation. In these 

instances, it is not necessary for OI to consult with the associated action office 

director to release the alleger’s identity. A reasonable effort should be made by 

the OAC, or other appropriate staff, to contact the alleger and explain why such a 

disclosure was made.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 13

(f) When the alleger has not agreed to identity release, and it is necessary for the 

NRC to release the alleger’s identity for any of the reasons outlined in 

Sections II.F.12(b)(i) through II.F.12(b)(vi) above, the staff (excluding OI) will 

consult with the action office director to discuss specific circumstances and 

obtain approval for the identity release. If the alleger has been granted 

confidential source status, refer to Section IV.E of this handbook for guidance 

regarding identity disclosure.

(g) The OAC or other designated staff member will notify the alleger in writing, and

by telephone, if possible, if any of the following determinations are made:

(i) It is necessary to release the alleger’s identity to any organization, individual, 

or to the public, for any of the reasons outlined in Sections II.F.12(b)(i) 

through II.F.12(b)(vi) and Section II.F.12(c) above.

(ii) The alleger’s name or other personal identifier has already been 

released for any of the reasons outlined in Sections II.F.12(b)(i) through 

II.F.12(b)(vi) above.

(iii) It is known that the alleger’s identity may be compromised or was released 

inappropriately by the NRC. See the Allegation Manual for staff actions after

an inappropriate identity release.

13. Advising an Alleger About Confidential Source Status 

(a) Most allegers accept the standard alleger identity protection provisions discussed 

in Sections II.F.1 through II.F.12 of this handbook and will provide the NRC with 

detail regarding their concern(s) on that basis.

(i) Occasionally, however, an alleger will decline to provide detailed information 

to the NRC regarding his or her concern(s) and also may refuse to provide his 

or her identity, for fear of being identified as the information source.

(ii) In such instances, the staff member receiving the allegation should make an 

effort to understand the reason(s) for the alleger’s reluctance to provide the 

information, inform the alleger of the standard alleger identity protection 

provisions, and indicate that confidential source status can be provided under 

certain circumstances (but not for concerns involving discrimination). See 

Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook for definitions of identity protection, 

confidentiality, and confidential source.

(iii) If a staff member is not knowledgeable or is unsure about discussing 

confidential source status, he or she should arrange for the alleger to contact 

an OAC or responsible manager.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 14

(iv) If the alleger continues to be reluctant to provide necessary information or 

expressly requests confidential source status, a confidentiality agreement 

may be offered to the alleger. See Section IV.B of this handbook and the 

standardized confidentiality agreement form in the Allegation Manual for 

guidance related to the granting of confidential source status. 

(b) If the alleger requests confidential source status before providing information, the 

guidance in Section IV.B of this handbook is to be followed.

(c) Sometimes an alleger refuses to accept an offer of confidential source status and 

to provide relevant information. In such circumstances, the NRC may consider 

issuance of a subpoena or other means to obtain needed information, if the NRC 

has the alleger’s contact information. 

(d) If an alleger persists in not offering necessary information and, in addition,

refuses to provide his or her identity, the staff member receiving the allegation 

will take the following actions:

(i) Document the allegation in as much detail as possible.

(ii) Advise the alleger that he or she may contact the OAC or a designated staff 

member in the future for information on the status of any actions being taken 

on the information supplied.1

G. Discrimination Concerns and Department of Labor (DOL) Information 

1. If an allegation involves a claim of discrimination under Section 211 of the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended (hereafter referred to as ERA 

Section 211), the alleger is to be informed of the following:

(a) ERA Section 211 affords personal remedies such as reinstatement and 

compensation for lost wages when an employer is found by DOL to have 

discriminated against an alleger for engaging in protected activity. See the 

definition of protected activity in Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook. 

(b) Personal remedies may be obtained through the DOL for any retaliatory or 

discriminatory practices by the employer if a complaint is filed in a timely manner 

and the employer does not have a legitimate reason for the adverse action taken 

against the employee.

(c) An ERA Section 211 complaint must be filed with DOL, in writing, within 180 days 

of the date of the discriminatory action or the date any notice, in writing or 

 1 In any future contact, if one were to occur, the alleger should be requested to provide NRC with evidence 

that he or she is the individual who originally contacted NRC, such as by providing a previously agreed 

upon code number or phrase, or a specific detail related to the allegation that only the alleger would know.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 15

otherwise, of an adverse action is received by the alleger. The Allegation Manual 

provides guidance on obtaining the appropriate DOL contact information.

(d) The NRC will determine whether or not an investigation is warranted on the basis 

of the information provided by the alleger.

(e) If the NRC opens an investigation, the alleger’s identity will be disclosed, since a 

matter of alleged discrimination cannot be investigated without identifying the alleger.

(f) The NRC may complete its investigation of the discrimination allegation before 

resolution by DOL and may take action independent of DOL.

(g) The NRC will evaluate any concern associated with regulated activity that 

provides a basis for the discrimination concern if the alleger indicates that the 

concern has not been adequately resolved by the licensee. The NRC will enter 

the related concern into the NRC allegation process without regard to action that 

may be taken by DOL. Note: When the NRC is notified by DOL that it is 

investigating a complaint of discrimination under ERA Section 211, and the 

alleger previously has not submitted his or her concern(s) to the NRC, the action 

office shall obtain a copy of the complaint (if DOL has not already provided it to 

the NRC), enter the concern(s) into the NRC allegation process, contact the 

alleger, and clarify the basis for the discrimination concern. 

2. Employees of State agencies that are NRC or Agreement State licensees may not 

have the option of filing a discrimination complaint with DOL. Allegers who are State 

employees should be instructed to consider contacting appropriate State entities to 

determine if the State has a program for processing such matters. Employees of 

Federal agencies (other than the Department of Energy (DOE)) who raise allegations 

of discrimination should be instructed to consider contacting the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (MSPB).

H. Processing the Received Allegation

1. Actions of the Receiving Employee and Action Office Staff

(a) An NRC employee receiving an allegation will inform his or her supervisor and 

also provide the information to the appropriate OAC.

(i) The allegation is initially assessed by these individuals to determine if it 

involves a potential OSI.

(ii) Sometimes the receiving employee is from a headquarters office that does 

not retain an OAC and is unsure of the appropriate OAC. In that case, the 

information may be provided to allegation program staff in OE, who will 

forward it to the appropriate OAC.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 16

(b) Any employee who receives an allegation will document the allegation and 

forward it to the responsible OAC, and should do so within 5 calendar days of 

receipt. The receiving employee should not retain copies of the allegation once it 

is verified that the allegation has been received by the OAC.

(i) The receiving employees shall follow the Sensitive Unclassified 

Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) handling requirements for transmitting 

allegation information to the OAC.

(ii) If the received information contains Safeguards Information (SGI), the 

receiving employee shall refer to MD 12.7 for documentation guidance.

(c) Generally, action will not be taken to determine the validity of an allegation, nor 

will an allegation be discussed with licensees or other affected organizations until 

after the initial ARB meeting or, in the case of an OSI, after the OAC or 

designated staff has briefed appropriate NRC management. If NRC management 

determines that immediate action is necessary to address an OSI, including 

notification of the licensee before an initial ARB meeting, then a subsequent ARB 

meeting shall be held as soon as practicable to affirm actions already taken and 

develop followup actions. If the regional or headquarters office staff that 

determined the immediate actions to be taken constituted an ARB quorum, and 

an evaluation plan was approved at that time, documentation of this discussion 

may be credited as the initial ARB.

(d) After reviewing the allegation receipt documentation (or other pertinent 

information, if the ARB is being reconvened for a particular allegation), 

responsible action office staff will take the following actions:

(i) Clarify concerns and develop actions to evaluate the allegation to be 

recommended to the ARB, including whether the allegation involves a safety 

concern that requires immediate corrective action (see Section II.I of this 

handbook for ARB guidance).

(ii) Propose the necessary followup actions for discussion at an ARB meeting 

and, as requested by the ARB, implement those actions.

(iii) Propose actions to be explored during the ARB meeting, if time does not

permit staff review before the ARB.

2. OAC Actions 

(a) The OAC coordinates efforts to support action office evaluation of the allegation 

in as efficient and effective a manner as possible, considering the circumstances 

of the issue(s) raised. 

(b) The OAC convenes an ARB of appropriate personnel to review each allegation 

for safety significance and determine appropriate actions to evaluate the 

allegation (see Section II.I of this handbook for ARB guidance).
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 17

(c) The OAC ensures that timely and accurate information on allegations is 

maintained and made available to responsible staff for ARB discussion and 

allegation evaluation. The OAC also provides responsible managers with status 

information related to open allegations, and historical allegation data to enable 

the identification of and a focus on allegation trend areas.

(d) As appropriate, an ARB may assign the following actions to the OAC or other 

designated staff:2

(i) Notify appropriate agencies of concerns outside NRC jurisdiction;

(ii) Provide external agency contact information to the concerned individual (e.g., the 

contact information for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 

alleged discrimination related to age, sex, race, or ethnic origin).

(e) If an allegation has generic implications or involves licensing, technical expertise, 

or other activities not performed by the receiving office, the receiving OAC will 

take the following actions:

(i) Notify headquarters offices and other regional offices that may be affected.

(ii) Discuss the potential for allegation transfer to a headquarters office.

(iii) Discuss the potential need to request information from a headquarters office 

(see Sections II.J.4(a) and II.J.4(c) of this handbook).

• To request input from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), 

use a Task Interface Agreement (TIA) (see NRR Office Instruction 

COM-106, Revision 4, “Control of Task Interface Agreements,”

January 6, 2014).

• To request input from NMSS or the Office of New Reactors (NRO), use a 

Technical Assistance Request (TAR) (see NUREG-1556, Volume 20, 

Section 4.14, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licensees:

Guidance About Administrative Licensing Procedures,” December 2000, 

or NRO TAR Process Flow Chart, April 23, 2014, available at 

http://epm.nrc.gov/inspection/cip/TAR-site/default.aspx).

• To request input from the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident 

Response (NSIR), use a Report on Interaction (see NSIR Office 

Procedure ADM-113, Revision 0, “Report on Interaction Process,”

November 2011).

 2 Alternatively, if the receiving OAC determines that a received concern is clearly outside NRC 

jurisdiction, the OAC can, without submitting the concern to an ARB, refer the concern to the 

appropriate entity. The receiving OAC can also provide external agency contact information to the 

concerned individual without submitting the concern to an ARB.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 18

3. Allegation Documentation 

(a) A unique identifying number is established for each allegation when the OAC 

documents the allegation in the Allegation Management System (AMS) database. 

(b) The OAC creates a hard copy file for each allegation to contain all 

allegation-related documentation. The allegation files are to be retrievable only 

by allegation number (i.e., there must be no alleger identifying information on the 

outside of the allegation file folder). 

(c) Allegation File Cover Sheets3

(i) If an allegation file is removed from its official storage location for review by 

assigned staff, a blue “Warning - Sensitive Allegation Material” cover sheet 

(NRC Form 762) must be attached to the top of the file (see Exhibit 3 of the 

Allegation Manual).

(ii) There is an exception for allegation files involving an alleger with confidential 

source status, which require a red “Warning - Confidential Allegation Material”

cover sheet (NRC Form 761) (see Exhibit 4 of the Allegation Manual).

(d) Documentation that contains the identity of an alleger or other information that 

would identify an alleger may be separated from the official allegation file if it is 

appropriately protected.

(i) The documentation must have the appropriate cover sheet to indicate that it

contains sensitive allegation information.

(ii) The documentation should be conspicuously marked (typed or stamped) to 

indicate that the document identifies an alleger, depending on the 

document type. 

(iii) The following are examples of document types that could identify an alleger:

• A letter to an alleger;

• A letter from an alleger;

• A document from an alleger; or

• Another type of document that specifically identifies the alleger or 

contains other alleger identifying information.

 3 Allegation file storage and access control mechanisms are outlined in Section II.H.4 of this handbook.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 19

(iv) More specific guidance regarding allegation file documentation handling 

under SUNSI handling requirements is provided in the Allegation Manual.

Cover sheets must also be attached to allegation documents that are 

provided in response to a FOIA request and must stay on the package 

throughout the FOIA process.

(e) Responsible staff may determine that an allegation-related matter is to be 

addressed in a Preliminary Notification (PN). A PN is an early notice of an event 

or issue of possible safety or safeguards significance, generic interest, or high 

public interest. See NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 1120, “Preliminary 

Notifications,” for additional information.

(i) The PN should not identify—

• The source of the allegation concern(s);

• The fact that the information was provided by an alleger; or

• The fact that the information is the subject of an allegation.

(ii) Responsible staff should obtain the approval of the action office director before 

issuance of the PN. 

4. Storage of Official Agency Allegation Files and Documents (Official Agency Record)

(a) Official agency allegation files shall be maintained in a designated storage 

location under the control of the OAC. The OAC will restrict NRC personnel 

access to allegation files to those with a need-to-know. 

(b) Keycard access to NRC buildings provides adequate security for allegation files 

and documents containing the identity of an alleger. Allegation files and documents 

containing the identity of an alleger who has been granted confidential source 

status or SGI shall be stored in a container approved for such information and shall 

not be stored with allegation files that do not contain such information. Specific 

guidance regarding allegation file storage under SUNSI storage requirements is 

provided in the Allegation Manual. 

(c) The OAC will limit the distribution of allegation file documentation outside of the 

action office to allegation information that is being transferred to another regional 

or headquarters office, documentation that is produced in response to an 

allegation-related FOIA request, or allegation-related documents that are provided to 

the Office of the Secretary (SECY) for certification that records are true copies. 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 20

I. Allegation Review Board (ARB) 

An Allegation Review Board (ARB) is a board established by regional administrators and 

headquarters office directors to determine the safety significance and appropriate NRC 

followup actions for each allegation.

1. Participants and Functions 

(a) An ARB consists of a chairperson (an action office director, division director, 

deputy director, or senior manager designee), an OAC, and at least one other 

responsible individual from the action office. Other personnel may participate as 

deemed necessary by the ARB chairperson. For matters of potential wrongdoing 

or alleged discrimination, an OI representative and an Office of the General 

Counsel (OGC) representative or regional counsel should be in attendance for 

consultation. If an OI representative is not available or if an OGC representative 

or regional counsel is not available, the ARB shall assign the absent party or 

parties an action to review decisions made by the ARB to determine if additional 

ARB discussion is necessary. 

(b) Normally, an initial ARB meeting is to be held within 30 calendar days of 

allegation receipt by the agency.4 When an allegation involves an overriding 

safety issue, an ARB should be held as soon as possible.

2. ARB Proceedings 

(a) The ARB accomplishes the following:

(i) Considers the safety significance of each allegation concern. 

(ii) Assigns followup actions and estimated completion times for concern 

evaluation consistent with the safety and risk significance of each allegation 

concern, as determined by the ARB. Assigns actions for alleger feedback as 

prescribed by the allegation process and supplemental alleger feedback, as 

deemed appropriate.

(iii) Assigns responsibility for allegation evaluation, both within and outside the 

action office, as appropriate. The basis for an ARB decision to send an 

allegation-related RFI to the licensee shall be documented in the ARB meeting 

summary. Allegation evaluation is accomplished by—

• Conducting an inspection or technical review;

 4 It is recognized that delays in allegation receipt (and in the subsequent scheduling of an initial ARB) 

may be encountered in some circumstances. As an example, time needed by the Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) to evaluate information received by that office that also includes allegation 

information may delay receipt of the allegation information by the action office. When such a delay is 

encountered, the initial ARB should be held as soon as possible, particularly when the alleger’s 

identity is known.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 21

• Requesting feedback from the affected licensee through an RFI or 

another NRC regional office or headquarters office using a TIA, TAR, or 

Report on Interaction;

• Obtaining the results of investigations or evaluations conducted by OI, 

DOJ, DOL, a State agency, or another Federal agency; or 

• Any combination of these actions. 

(iv) Provides guidance and direction to assigned action office staff. 

(v) Recommends offering an alleger who has articulated a prima facie 

showing of potential discrimination for engaging in protected activity the 

opportunity to resolve his or her concern through Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR). See Section II.I.3 of this handbook and 

NUREG/BR-0313, “Pre-Investigation ADR Program,” at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0313/. 

(vi) Facilitates discussions with responsible NSIR or regional security inspection 

personnel regarding the proper categorization of security-related allegation 

concerns for determining the amount of detail that may be disclosed external to 

the NRC upon closure of the allegation (e.g., in a closure letter to an alleger). 

See Section II.L.3(d)(i) of this handbook for guidance regarding the 

determination of the appropriate security information category.

(vii) Facilitates discussions of allegations involving wrongdoing and discrimination 

with OI, including the determination of investigative priorities. Examples of 

alleged wrongdoing include (1) an assertion that a procedure required to be 

followed to fulfill a required nuclear safety function was intentionally violated, 

or (2) that a fraudulent or counterfeit part has been supplied or used 

intentionally as a replacement for a part that must be appropriately qualified. 

Section V of this handbook, “Initiating, Prioritizing, and Terminating 

Investigations by the Office of Investigation (OI),” provides detail regarding 

the requirement for staff to notify OI of allegations of potential wrongdoing and 

to engage OI to coordinate followup actions related to wrongdoing and 

discrimination issues. The ARB assures that a potential violation describing 

the technical and legal basis for the alleged wrongdoing is provided to OI 

before the initiation of an investigation. If an alleged wrongdoing concern 

lacks the specificity needed to determine further regulatory actions, the ARB 

will first recommend that the staff attempt to gather more information directly 

from the alleger. The ARB can also request assistance from OI (i.e., an 

OI Assist to Staff (see definition of “OI Assist to Staff” in Section VI, 

“Glossary,” of this handbook)), to support the staff in obtaining additional 

information regarding the allegation. The ARB also may consider issuing an 

RFI to the licensee in an attempt to obtain information associated with, but not 

directly related to, the wrongdoing concern (e.g., procedural, programmatic, 

or personnel-related information). However, typically this action should not be 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 22

considered before an attempt is made to gather more information directly 

from the alleger or from inspection activities or from an OI Assist to Staff. The 

ARB can also request assistance from OI to obtain testimony regarding other 

matters, including feedback related to the condition of a licensee’s safety 

culture or safety conscious work environment.

(viii) Facilitates discussion of alleged wrongdoing and discrimination matters with 

OI at various stages of review, as necessary. 

(ix) Requests legal reviews by representatives of OGC or regional counsel, as 

appropriate. 

(x) Considers, on very rare occasions, and after discussion with the alleger, 

whether to advertise that inspection or investigation efforts are allegation 

related (while still protecting the alleger’s identity). In these instances, the 

ARB must determine whether making the allegation-related information 

available to the public significantly improves the staff’s evaluation by affording 

facility employees an opportunity to bring pertinent information to the NRC’s 

attention (because public dissemination of allegation-related information is not 

a standard course of action). Similarly, on very rare occasions, such as for 

allegations raised in a highly public manner, concerns impacting many 

individuals, and significant safety issues, the ARB, in coordination with the 

AAA, and after discussion with the alleger, may consider whether 

documenting the results of an allegation assessment publicly would improve 

public confidence in the allegation program or if it is necessary to do so to 

support the agency’s mission. To ensure that such action does not lead the 

public to assume that all allegation concerns are or will be made public, all 

such communications shall clearly explain the reason for discussing the 

allegation publicly. In these instances, the ARB should consider any 

objections raised by the alleger before proceeding and should not normally 

authorize the action over an alleger’s objection. If the ARB reaches a decision 

to publicize that a forthcoming inspection is allegation-related or to publicly 

document the results of an allegation assessment, the approval of the 

applicable regional administrator or headquarters office director shall be 

obtained before taking the action. The staff should monitor the impact of 

public dissemination of allegation-related information on the allegation 

program and report all concerns to the AAA.

(xi) Establishes written minutes documenting issues discussed, meeting 

participants, safety significance assessments provided, investigation priorities 

established, and actions assigned by the ARB. 

(b) The ARB should be reconvened if new information is presented that changes the 

safety significance of an allegation concern, indicates that alteration of an 

existing course of action should be considered, or if additional discussion of the 

allegation is otherwise deemed necessary. The ARB should be reconvened 6 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 23

months after initial receipt, and approximately every 4 months thereafter to 

review an allegation that is older than 6 months, unless the only open concerns 

relate to matters involving OI or DOL that have no open technical issue or the 

technical concern awaits completion of action by another Government agency. 

An allegation older than 6 months that has an ongoing OI investigation but no 

open technical issues may be discussed during routine OI investigation status

and priority discussions with action office management.

(c) If an OI investigation has been initiated regarding an allegation involving an alleger 

whose identity is known, and the alleger is interviewed by OI, the transcript or 

summary of interview with the alleger shall be provided to the action office OAC for 

review by responsible regional and headquarters office staff. If new issues are 

identified or information exists to warrant a change in investigation priority after the 

transcript or summary of interview has been reviewed by the staff, the ARB should 

reconvene to determine appropriate action. 

(d) The ARB chairperson makes the final decisions regarding the actions proposed 

during the ARB meeting and provides final approval for requested actions. After 

each ARB, the OAC shall document the actions requested and decisions 

recorded and approved by the ARB in the allegation file and enter them into the 

AMS database. This course of action ensures that a current record of activity for 

each allegation is maintained. The OAC will inform the responsible NRC 

manager of the ARB’s final decisions reached and actions assigned. The 

responsible NRC manager, with the support of the OAC, will ensure that 

appropriate staff is informed of the ARB decision, particularly those who are 

assigned specific actions, resident inspectors, and non-resident inspectors, as 

appropriate. 

3. ARB Discussions Involving Allegations of Discrimination 

(a) When an allegation of discrimination is received, the ARB, with OGC or regional 

counsel support, will determine whether a prima facie showing of potential 

discrimination has been articulated by the alleger. See definition of prima facie 

showing of discrimination in Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook. For a prima 

facie discrimination case, the ARB will assign an action to offer the alleger an 

opportunity to use Early Alternative Dispute Resolution (Early ADR) as a means 

of obtaining resolution of the issue, as an alternative to an OI investigation. See 

NUREG/BR-0313.

(b) Exceptions to offering Early ADR to the alleger should be rare and shall be 

approved by the Director, OE, before the initiation of an OI investigation. 

Although OI will not be requested to initiate an investigation at the initial ARB 

because of the need to first offer Early ADR to the alleger, the ARB may assign 

an investigation priority of High, Normal, or Low, using guidance set forth in the 

Allegation Manual, for later reference, if Early ADR is not used or is 

unsuccessful. A tentative investigation priority, if assigned at the ARB, should be 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 24

determined without regard to whether DOL is separately investigating the 

allegation of discrimination. The ARB minutes must document the rationale for 

the assigned priority. 

(c) If Early ADR (or any other mediation process) is employed and is successful in 

establishing a settlement between the alleger and his or her employer or former 

or prospective employer, an OI investigation will not be initiated and enforcement 

action will not be taken, as long as the agreement is reviewed by OGC and no 

restrictive covenants in violation of the applicable employee protection rule exist. 

If Early ADR is not used by the alleger, or if the alleger is unsuccessful in 

establishing a settlement with his or her employer or former or prospective 

employer, or if the alleger or licensee has been unresponsive to the Early ADR 

offer, OI will be requested to initiate an investigation. The contingency action to 

open an OI investigation may be decided upon at the initial ARB, or affirmed at a 

followup ARB meeting after knowledge of the unsuccessful Early ADR result has 

been established. 

J. Allegation Evaluation 

1. Acknowledgment Letter 

(a) When the identity of an alleger is known, an acknowledgment letter is to be 

issued to the alleger, normally within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt of 

the allegation. The acknowledgment letter may be prepared and signed by the 

OAC or by any appropriate action office official, as established by the action 

office, with the concurrence of the OAC. The acknowledgment letter shall include 

a restatement of the alleger’s concerns, along with information relevant to the 

issues involved (e.g., the Early ADR and DOL processes, identity protection, 

important contacts, whether concerns are being referred to another entity (like an 

Agreement State), or whether an RFI from the licensee is being considered). A 

standardized acknowledgment letter is available in the Allegation Manual. 

Whenever possible, acknowledgment letters (and all other written 

correspondence to an alleger) should be sent using a delivery mechanism that 

allows for verification of receipt. Note: For instances in which an alleger requests 

electronic correspondence (e-mail), the OAC should request the alleger to verify 

receipt of the information.

(b) If discrimination has been alleged, and a prima facie showing of potential 

discrimination has been articulated, the acknowledgment letter shall offer the 

alleger the opportunity to use Early ADR, while making clear that Early ADR 

does not stay the 180-day timeliness requirement for filing a discrimination 

complaint with DOL. The OAC will inform OE that an offer of Early ADR has 

been made. Note: The alleger should not be offered an opportunity to use Early 

ADR until after the matter of alleged discrimination has been discussed by the 

ARB, since the ARB, with OGC or regional counsel support, must conclude that 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 25

a prima facie showing of potential discrimination has been articulated by the 

alleger before Early ADR is offered.

(c) For sensitive, security-related concerns, the acknowledgment letter will reiterate 

the concern(s) raised but will inform the alleger that the NRC, following 

evaluation of the concerns, may only be able to provide limited information 

regarding the staff’s review, assessment, and findings. The letter shall not 

include classified, SGI, or sensitive security information. 

2. Alleger Interview by NRC Technical Staff

In some cases, an interview with the alleger by the NRC technical staff may be 

warranted. Depending on the nature of the allegation and the time sensitivity of the 

issue, assistance from OI or other resources may be requested. If an alleger 

requests an interview with the NRC to more clearly explain his or her concerns, or to 

present information, every effort should be made to accommodate such a request. 

All contacts with the alleger should be documented and forwarded to the OAC for 

inclusion in the allegation file. If travel to the action office is necessary, and travel 

compensation is requested by the alleger, travel costs can be offered with 

management approval and will be borne by the action office. 

3. Evaluation by NRC Technical Staff 

(a) After completing inspection activities or review as requested by the ARB or as 

directed by management to address an OSI, technical staff will notify designated 

responsible staff and the OAC of the completed actions. The allegation status 

can then be tracked, and subsequent allegation process activities may be 

initiated (e.g., the development of closure documentation).

(b) The technical staff will document the evaluation of each allegation concern in a 

report or other appropriate correspondence and submit the documentation to the 

OAC for inclusion in the allegation file, along with all supporting information. See 

Sections II.L.1 and II.L.3 of this handbook for guidance regarding staff 

development of allegation closure documentation.

4. Allegation Transfers, RFIs, and Referrals 

(a) Considering an Allegation Transfer, RFI, or Referral

(i) Other actions that may be considered by the ARB in support of an allegation 

evaluation are—

• Transferring an allegation or specific concerns within an allegation to the 

appropriate regional or headquarters office;

• Requesting information from a licensee through an RFI;
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 26

• Requesting input from another NRC headquarters office through a TIA,

TAR, or Report on Interaction; or

• Making a referral to another government agency or other external entity.

(ii) Normally, ARB approval is obtained before the actions noted in 

Section II.J.4(a)(i), bullet 1 through bullet 4 are taken. However, if in the 

judgment of the receiving OAC, a concern is clearly under the purview of 

another regional or headquarters office or is outside the NRC’s jurisdiction, the 

OAC can take the following actions without submitting the concern to an ARB:

• Transfer the allegation or specific concerns within the allegation to the 

appropriate regional or headquarters office;

• Refer the concern to the appropriate external agency or entity; or

• Provide contact information for the external agency or entity to the 

concerned individual.

(iii) Matters necessitating referral to law enforcement agencies shall be 

coordinated with OI. 

(iv) Matters necessitating referral to an Agreement State should be coordinated 

with the appropriate RSAO. 

(b) Informing an Alleger of an Allegation Transfer, RFI, or Referral 

When it is determined that information is to be requested from the licensee or an 

issue is to be referred to another Government agency or external entity, the 

alleger should receive feedback regarding such action. The notification may be 

provided in a letter to or a documented conversation with the alleger. If an 

allegation is transferred within NRC, feedback may be provided to the alleger by 

either the receiving office or the office to which the allegation is transferred. The 

OACs for the offices participating in the transfer will discuss and agree upon 

which office will inform the alleger about the allegation transfer.

(c) Allegation Transfers and Allegation-Related TIAs, TARs, or Reports on Interaction

(i) When a regional or headquarters office receives an allegation and determines 

that the allegation should be transferred to another regional or headquarters

office, the offices must contact each other before the transfer. The office to 

which the allegation is to be transferred should be in agreement that it is the 

appropriate action office to evaluate the allegation. If agreement is reached, 

the allegation is transferred. It is not necessary for the regional or 

headquarters office that initially received the allegation to enter the allegation 

into the AMS or conduct an ARB meeting in this instance. 

(ii) When a regional or headquarters office determines that technical assistance 

is needed from another headquarters office in reviewing an allegation through 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 27

a TIA (NRR), TAR (NMSS, NRO), or Report on Interaction (NSIR), the other 

office must agree to the request for technical review. The fact that the request 

for technical review is related to an allegation must clearly be documented to 

assure that the headquarters office from which technical assistance is being 

requested is made aware of allegation response timeliness issues.

(d) Requests for Information From the Licensee 

(i) Policy Regarding the Issuance of an RFI to the Licensee 

• Engaging the licensee in the evaluation of an allegation provides NRC 

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

and provides the licensee with unique insights into its own safety culture.

• A licensee has primary responsibility for ensuring the safe operation of 

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

personnel, equipment, and documentation related to allegation concerns; 

therefore, action offices should request information from the licensee in 

support of allegation evaluation whenever possible and appropriate, and 

in all instances involving an OSI.

• As indicated in the sections that follow, the ARB should refrain from 

issuing an RFI to the licensee in instances that could compromise an 

alleger’s identity or an OI investigation if it is unlikely that the licensee will 

be able to perform an independent and effective evaluation, or if a State 

or Federal agency providing the allegation does not approve of the RFI.

• Other items to be considered by the ARB in deciding whether or not to 

request information from the licensee include the following: feedback from 

the alleger regarding the option of issuing an RFI to the licensee,

allegation history and trends, whether NRC inspection or technical review 

is preferred in place of or in addition to an RFI, and past licensee 

performance in responding to allegation-related RFIs.

• Guidance in this area is provided in the Allegation Manual, which includes an 

“Allegation Review Board Worksheet,” intended to support discussion at the 

ARB when an RFI to the licensee is being considered.

(ii) Conditions Inhibiting the Issuance of an RFI to the Licensee 

A licensee may be asked to provide information regarding an allegation 

involving an OSI in any circumstance, as deemed appropriate. However, in 

other circumstances, the staff generally would not consider an RFI from the 

licensee if any of the following conditions apply:

• Information cannot be released in sufficient detail to the licensee without 

compromising the identity of the alleger (unless the alleger has no 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 28

objection to the NRC’s requesting information from the licensee and 

understands the possibility that his or her identity may be compromised).

• The licensee could compromise an OI investigation or inspection because 

of knowledge gained by the licensee from the RFI. 

• The allegation is made against senior licensee management or parties 

who would normally receive the RFI, such that an independent and 

effective evaluation is unlikely. 

• The basis of the allegation is information received from a Federal or State 

agency that does not approve of the information being released to the 

licensee in an RFI.

(iii) Requesting Information From the Licensee in Response to an Overriding 

Safety Issue (OSI)

• If an allegation raises an OSI, responsible NRC staff will normally issue 

an RFI to the licensee verbally and confirm the issue in writing, regardless 

of any factor in Section II.J.4(d)(ii). An effort will be made to inform the 

alleger about the issuance of the RFI. In this instance, however, the 

consideration of a waiting period for alleger feedback regarding a 

proposed RFI is waived.

• Note: If the alleger has confidential source status, refer to the alleger’s 

confidentiality agreement for specific guidance regarding the release of 

information to a licensee about an OSI. In this instance, the alleger is 

normally given an opportunity to voice any objection regarding the RFI.

The staff may proceed with the RFI despite the alleger’s objection or lack 

of response when (1) an effort has been made to contact the alleger (if no 

feedback is provided), (2) sufficient effort is made to evaluate any 

feedback provided by the alleger, and (3) the staff continues to believe 

that the RFI is warranted. In addition to providing the RFI to the licensee, 

responsible NRC staff should refer to Section IV.E.1 of this handbook if 

the staff believes that the identity of the confidential source must be 

disclosed to the licensee to appropriately address the OSI. 

(iv) Informing the Alleger About an Allegation-Related RFI to the Licensee 

• Before an RFI is provided to a licensee regarding an allegation, all 

reasonable efforts should be made to notify an alleger whose identity is 

known of the planned RFI.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 29

• The fact that an alleger is aware that an RFI may be or will be provided to 

the licensee is normally confirmed in the acknowledgment letter to the 

alleger. However, this understanding may be otherwise documented 

(e.g., in the summary of the initial contact with the alleger, or in a 

telephone conversation record).

(v) RFI Letter to the Licensee

• The RFI letter to the licensee regarding an allegation should reference the 

allegation number and inform the licensee of the concern(s) in a level of 

detail that will enable the licensee to evaluate the concern but should not 

include the identity of the alleger or information that could permit the 

licensee to identify the alleger.

• The RFI letter should request that the licensee review the matter and 

provide a written report of the results of that review.

• Staff expectations regarding the quality and scope of the licensee’s 

evaluation, the qualifications and independence of review personnel, and 

limitations on the distribution of the RFI letter and its enclosure(s) should 

be conveyed, and the licensee should be requested to describe how 

these attributes were met in its response to the NRC.

• If the licensee conducts interviews or evaluates samples of 

documentation, systems, structures, or components in response to the 

RFI letter, the licensee is expected to provide the basis for determining 

the number of individuals interviewed, the interview questions used, and 

the adequacy of sample sizes.

• The licensee is expected to note any instance identified during the course 

of its review in response to an RFI letter indicating that an NRC 

requirement may have been violated.

• An RFI letter regarding allegations is not issued on the public docket.

• A standardized RFI letter requesting information from the licensee is 

available in the Allegation Manual.

• The RFI letter requesting information from the licensee regarding 

allegations that contain security-related information should be treated as 

SUNSI and should be handled under established agency guidance. This 

requirement refers to information requests concerning the following: 

physical protection, material control and accounting for special nuclear 

material, security-related orders or confirmatory action letters, insider 

mitigation, access authorization, or fitness-for-duty issues that are 

programmatic or associated with security personnel. When SUNSI 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 30

handling requirements differ between allegation information and sensitive 

security-related information, the more restrictive guidance applies.

• The RFI letter also shall request that the licensee contact the NRC to 

ensure a common understanding of the scope of the allegation and the 

NRC’s expectations for followup and response, and to discuss the 

licensee’s plans for evaluating the concerns that are the subject of the RFI. 

(vi) Responsible NRC Staff Review of Licensee Response to an RFI

• Responsible NRC staff will review the licensee’s response to an RFI for 

adequacy.

• This review should include some alternate verification of aspects of the 

information provided. Acceptable verification methods include, but are not 

limited to, the following:

− Verify the existence and applicability of technical references, 

procedures, corrective action documentation, or calculations 

noted in the licensee’s response.

− Review recent inspection results in the functional area related to 

the allegation.

− Ask followup questions on the material provided by the licensee.

− Conduct an independent inspection or technical review.

• If the licensee does not conduct a thorough review, the staff may request 

the licensee perform a supplemental RFI review, or NRC independently 

may inspect or investigate the allegation concern(s).

• The staff should inform the licensee of an identified inadequacy in the 

licensee’s response to the RFI.

• NRC staff conclusions about the licensee’s response and any 

independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts should be 

documented for inclusion in allegation closure documentation.

• Guidance for staff review of the licensee’s RFI response and actions to 

be taken if the RFI response is inadequate, inaccurate, or otherwise 

unacceptable is provided in the Allegation Manual. The 

Allegation Manual includes a “Checklist for NRC Staff Review of 

Licensee Response to an Allegation Request for Information.”

(e) Referral of Concerns About Agreement State Licensees 

(i) Under the terms of the agreement between NRC and an Agreement State, 

NRC must refer concerns received regarding Agreement State licensees to 

the Agreement State for review and evaluation.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 31

(ii) If an individual who contacts the NRC with concerns about an Agreement 

State licensee agrees to be contacted directly by the Agreement State 

after the Agreement State program is described to him or her, the 

concerns are provided to the appropriate RSAO for referral to the 

Agreement State and are not processed as allegations.

(iii) If the concerned individual is unwilling to contact or to have his or her identity 

disclosed to the Agreement State, the allegation program is used to track the 

evaluation of the concerns raised about the Agreement State licensee.

(iv) Guidance related to the referral of concerns involving Agreement State 

licensees is provided in the Allegation Manual.

(f) Referral of Industrial Safety Concerns to the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA)

Concerns submitted to NRC within the purview of OSHA are to be handled under

NRC IMC 1007 and applicable regional or headquarters office procedures.

(g) Referral of Concerns to Government Agencies and Military Organizations

(i) Concerns under the jurisdiction of Government agencies and the military or 

other organizations outside NRC’s jurisdiction will be referred by designated 

action office staff to the appropriate organization. (For example, concerns 

about environmental quality related to other than nuclear material or concerns 

about the radiological aspects of Superfund sites are to be referred to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).) 

(ii) The appropriate OI field office and the Director, OI, are responsible for

notifying Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and for the 

determination of the amount of information to be provided to them.

(iii) The concerned individual should be informed that the matter is not within 

NRC regulatory jurisdiction and that he or she may contact any of these 

organizations directly.

(iv) Identity protection of the concerned individual should be considered in staff 

referrals of such matters under the identity protection guidance in this 

handbook (see Sections II.F and IV.B of this handbook).

(h) Referral of Offsite Emergency Preparedness Matters Related to NRC-Licensed 

Facilities to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

(i) Allegations involving offsite emergency preparedness matters related to 

NRC-licensed facilities are to be assigned to NSIR. 

(ii) NSIR is the responsible action office for such matters and will refer the 

concern(s) to and request a response from FEMA to support allegation 

closure. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NRC and 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 32

FEMA, contained in Appendix A to 44 CFR Part 353, outlines FEMA’s 

responsibilities with respect to radiological emergency response planning as 

related to NRC. Note: If an allegation is related to an offsite emergency 

preparedness issue under the responsibility of a specific NRC licensee 

(based on the licensee’s emergency plan), the allegation is managed in the 

responsible regional office, unless it is generic in nature.

(i) Referral to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

(i) Occasionally, a submitted allegation also may include one or more assertions 

related to NRC staff or contractor misconduct or mismanagement of agency 

programs or operations.

(ii) Issues regarding suspected improper conduct by NRC employees or NRC 

contractors will be brought directly or through appropriate NRC management 

to the attention of OIG. These issues are not considered allegations and are 

not to be described in the AMS.

(iii) Any records pertinent to matters involving OIG should be excluded from the 

allegation file or appropriately redacted and forwarded either directly to OIG or 

to the applicable regional administrator or headquarters office director for 

referral to OIG, as appropriate. Such matters should not be discussed during 

an ARB meeting.

5. Providing an Allegation Concern to OI for Initiation of an Investigation

(a) If potential wrongdoing or discrimination has been alleged, OI must be informed 

because investigation by OI is considered by the ARB as a possible course of action 

for evaluation of such matters. In these instances, the technical staff should normally 

coordinate with OI before conducting any inspection activity or providing any 

information to the licensee related to an allegation. See Sections V.A, “Staff 

Requirement to Advise OI of Matters of Potential Wrongdoing,” V.B, “Submittal of 

Information to OI,” and V.D, “Initiation of an Investigation by OI,” of this handbook for 

more guidance related to the initiation of an OI investigation.

(b) If an allegation includes an OSI as well as a wrongdoing or discrimination matter, 

it may be necessary for the technical staff to perform a technical review or 

release certain information to the licensee before holding an initial ARB, before 

an OI investigation is initiated, or before the publication of the OI investigation 

report. In these circumstances, the action office director will inform the OI Special 

Agent in Charge (SAIC) or the Director, OI, as appropriate, who will advise the 

action office of the anticipated effect of the technical staff response or the 

information release on the investigation. The action office will determine if the 

concerns represent an immediate safety issue to justify the risk of compromising 

the effectiveness of the pending OI investigation, potential escalated 

enforcement, or DOJ prosecution, in determining whether to perform the 

technical review or to release the information.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 33

(c) When an alleger has made a prima facie showing of potential discrimination, and 

the alleger has either chosen not to participate in Early ADR, has been 

unresponsive to the offer of Early ADR, or has been unsuccessful in obtaining an 

acceptable settlement through Early ADR or any other mediation process, the 

ARB will recommend that OI initiate an investigation.

(d) If an allegation related to a wrongdoing or alleged discrimination matter is 

substantiated, OI will inform DOJ of the investigation conclusion so that DOJ may 

consider the matter for potential criminal prosecution. In general, the fact that a 

particular matter has been or will be provided to DOJ will not be disclosed to the 

licensee or the public. If a regional or headquarters office director believes that 

he or she must disclose that an allegation has been provided or will be provided 

to DOJ, the concurrence of the Director, OI, will be obtained before disclosing the 

information. If DOJ accepts the issue, generally any ongoing NRC investigation 

activity, enforcement considerations, and allegation closure efforts are held in 

abeyance pending completion of the DOJ review.

K. Periodic Status Letters to Allegers

In instances of unusual delay in evaluating an allegation, the OAC or other designated 

staff should ensure that the alleger is provided periodic status letters regarding the NRC’s 

evaluation of concerns. Normally, the alleger should be advised every 180 days or sooner 

of the status of pending open allegation concerns. For wrongdoing issues, the alleger 

should be informed that the review is in progress. A standardized status letter is available 

in the Allegation Manual. If a closure letter is to be issued to the alleger within 2 weeks of 

the date a status letter is due, it is not necessary to send the status letter.

L. Allegation Closure 

1. Responsible NRC Staff Action 

As assigned, responsible NRC staff shall develop closure documentation for each 

allegation concern, describing the scope and depth of the review performed and 

indicating the staff’s conclusion as to the validity of the concern. The responsible 

branch chief shall review and concur in the basis for closing each allegation concern, 

as developed by the technical staff.

2. OAC Action 

(a) The OAC tracks all allegation concerns from receipt to closure. An allegation may 

not be closed until a determination has been made as to the validity of its 

concern(s). Occasionally, facts put forth by the alleger may be found to be true, 

even though the safety implications asserted by the alleger are found not to be 

valid or not to be representative of a safety problem or a violation of 

requirements. In these circumstances, closure of the concern involves 

acknowledging information provided by the alleger that was found to be true, 

while clearly explaining that an inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 34

activity was not substantiated. A concern also can be closed if the ARB and the 

OAC determine that insufficient information was available to ascertain a 

conclusion regarding the concern. The Allegation Manual includes suggestions 

regarding the discussion of allegation concern closure in the closure letter to the 

alleger or closure memorandum to the allegation file along with issues to be 

considered in determining whether an allegation concern should be documented 

as substantiated in the AMS database. 

(b) An allegation cannot be closed until all the concerns within the allegation are 

closed and a closure letter has been issued to the alleger (if the alleger’s identity 

is known) or a document has been submitted to the allegation file that discusses 

closure of each concern, if the alleger’s identity is unknown, if no written 

correspondence is to be provided to the alleger at the alleger’s request, or if the 

concerns are NRC-identified or licensee-identified. The OAC prepares or 

coordinates the preparation of a closure letter to the alleger or closure 

memorandum to the allegation file as indicated in Section II.L.3 below, and also 

concurs in the closure document. The OAC also is responsible for entering 

allegation concern closure information in the AMS.

3. Documentation of Allegation Evaluation 

(a) A final document (e.g., memorandum, draft closure letter, inspection report, 

technical evaluation, field notes, investigation report) will be prepared by 

responsible staff to document the evaluation and closure of the allegation 

concerns. The document should describe the safety, security, and regulatory 

significance for any substantiated concern. If the identity of the alleger is known, 

the OAC shall prepare or coordinate the preparation of a closure letter to the 

alleger for signature by the OAC or appropriate manager, setting forth the facts 

and the NRC’s evaluation and conclusions regarding each allegation concern. If a 

closure letter is not required, the OAC shall prepare or coordinate the preparation 

of a closure memorandum to the allegation file with an enclosure that restates 

each allegation concern and describes the NRC’s evaluation and conclusions 

regarding each concern (the document provided to the OAC by responsible staff 

may be used as the closure memorandum if it contains necessary detail and has 

OAC concurrence). If a closure letter or closure memorandum references a 

licensee’s RFI response, the responsible NRC staff should—

(i) Identify each allegation concern as provided or as modified by the alleger.

(ii) Describe the licensee’s evaluation and response.

(iii) Document NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response and overall 

conclusions regarding the validity of the concern(s), including NRC staff 

independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted to 

validate aspects of the licensee’s response.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 35

(b) If an alleger cannot be contacted or if the ARB decides that the alleger will not be 

contacted upon closure of the allegation, the basis for not contacting the alleger 

will be documented in the allegation file. 

(c) A standardized closure letter and closure memorandum to the allegation file are

available in the Allegation Manual. 

(d) Certain types of allegation concerns require the application of additional specific 

guidance when developing closure documentation. 

(i) Information provided in closure letters to allegers regarding security-related 

concerns will be limited based on the sensitivity of the concern, as defined by the 

following categories that describe the concern sensitivity from high to low.5 This 

category should be determined based on the allegation concern, as received, 

assuming that the concern is true.

• Category I – Security-related concerns that involve a potential generic 

security vulnerability. Letters to allegers will reiterate the concerns, but 

provide no details regarding the NRC’s evaluation or conclusion.

• Category II – Security-related concerns that, if true, would constitute a 

more than minor finding or violation categorized at greater than Severity 

Level IV, as determined by applicable guidance or review panels. Letters 

to allegers will reiterate the concerns and provide limited information 

regarding the NRC’s evaluation and conclusions such that information 

that an adversary could exploit is protected. The letter to the alleger 

should state that the security finding(s) or violation(s) either are Greater 

than Green (for Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) or construction ROP 

(cROP) actions) or are being considered for escalated enforcement 

action. The letter should not discuss the number of findings above Green 

or violations above Severity Level IV. (See the Enforcement Manual, NRC 

IMC 0305, and NRC IMC 2505, “Periodic Assessment of Construction 

Inspection Program Results,” for guidance related to the categorization of 

enforcement actions and reactor assessment program findings.)

• Category III – Security-related concerns that, if true, would at most 

constitute a minor finding or violation categorized at or lower than 

Severity Level IV, as determined by applicable guidance or review panels. 

Letters to allegers will reiterate the concerns and describe the actions 

taken by the staff to evaluate the concerns and the staff’s conclusions 

regarding the validity of the concerns, but would not include a description 

 5 Additional information may be provided verbally to the alleger for Category II and Category III 

concerns if requested and the staff can verify that the alleger is currently employed at the 

NRC-licensed facility that is associated with the allegation concerns as a member of the security force 

with normal access to such information.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 36

of the compensatory actions taken such that information that an 

adversary could exploit is protected. The letter to the alleger may indicate 

the number of security concerns characterized as Green or lower (for 

ROP or cROP actions) or violations categorized at or lower than Severity 

Level IV.

(ii) Other examples would include closure of a discrimination concern that has 

been resolved through Early ADR, and the closure of concerns related to 

Agreement State licensees that have been tracked as allegations because 

the alleger did not want NRC to provide his or her identity to the Agreement 

State. Detailed guidance for the closure of allegation concerns related to 

these and other specified conditions is provided in the Allegation Manual.

4. Notification of Results of OI Investigations and Assists 

(a) Notification of OI Investigation Closure When No Enforcement Action Is Intended 

Following the issuance of an OI report of investigation for which a conclusion was 

reached, the staff determines whether enforcement is warranted. If it is 

determined that enforcement is not warranted, the action office informs 

responsible individuals in the action office and other headquarters offices about 

the issue and OI’s investigation conclusion. Guidance for subsequent staff 

actions, including review of the OI investigation report, the opportunity to provide 

dissenting views, what to do if the technical staff disagrees with OI’s conclusion 

and how to inform the licensee about the OI investigation results is provided in

Part II, Section 1.1.5 of the NRC Enforcement Manual. If a letter is to be issued 

informing the licensee of the OI investigation results, it is issued as a public 

document (if it does not contain SGI or other sensitive security information) and 

should not contain information that could reveal the identity of an alleger. The 

letter to the licensee may include the OI investigation synopsis or other 

appropriate summary describing the staff’s conclusions regarding the results of 

the OI investigation (to the extent practical considering any sensitive security 

information). The closure letter to the alleger will inform him or her that the 

investigation has been closed, if applicable, and will provide a short summary of 

the results of the OI investigation and the staff’s conclusions (to the extent 

practical considering any sensitive security information). The letter to the licensee 

and the letter to the alleger should indicate that the complete OI report may be 

requested under the FOIA. 

(b) Notification of OI Investigation Closure When Enforcement Action Is Pending 

(i) When an enforcement action is pending, the alleger cannot normally be informed 

of the results of the investigation until the licensee is informed. Guidance for staff 

actions regarding the review, determination, and implementation of enforcement 

actions, including notification of the licensee is provided in Part II, Sections 1.1.6, 

1.3.5, and 1.3.10 of the NRC Enforcement Manual.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 37

(ii) Once the licensee has been notified about pending enforcement action 

regarding a substantiated wrongdoing case, a closure letter may be provided 

to the alleger informing him or her of the staff’s conclusions regarding the 

wrongdoing concern. It is not necessary to await the issuance of the final 

enforcement action to the licensee before providing the closure letter to the 

alleger although the ARB may decide to do so in certain instances. For 

substantiated discrimination cases (in which a pre-decisional enforcement 

conference or a Post-Investigation ADR mediation session is to be held), a 

copy of the letter that transmits information to the licensee about the results of 

the OI investigation (as prescribed in Part II, Sections 1.3.5, and 1.3.10 of the 

Enforcement Manual), and includes a factual summary or a redacted copy of 

the OI investigation report shall be provided to the alleger at the time the letter 

is sent to the licensee. The letter to the licensee should not contain 

information that could reveal the identity of the alleger.

(c) Release of Information Concerning Completed OI Investigations of Discrimination 

to Parties in an Ongoing DOL Proceeding 

When OI has completed an investigation that makes a finding on the merits of a 

discrimination concern and issues its report to the staff before completion of DOL 

proceedings on the same matter, the staff will inform the parties to the DOL 

proceeding of OI’s conclusion after coordinating with OE. For substantiated 

cases in which a predecisional enforcement conference or a post-investigation 

ADR session is to be held, both parties will be provided with information about 

the results of the OI investigation as prescribed in Sections 1.3.5 and 1.3.10 of 

the Enforcement Manual. If NRC decides to wait for completion of the DOL 

process before proceeding with the enforcement process, or for unsubstantiated 

cases, a letter will be provided to the licensee with the OI investigation synopsis 

or other appropriate summary describing the staff’s conclusions regarding the 

results of the OI investigation (to the extent practical considering any sensitive 

security information). A letter will be provided to the alleger including a short 

summary of the results of the OI investigation and the staff’s conclusions (to the 

extent practical considering any sensitive security information). Both parties will 

be provided with information on how to submit a request for the complete OI 

report under the FOIA.

(d) Closure of Issues Involving OI Assists to the Staff 

(i) In the absence of a specific indication of wrongdoing, OI may provide its 

investigative expertise to assist in matters of regulatory concern 

(e.g., interviewing to obtain additional relevant information). Upon the 

recommendation of an ARB and approval from an OI SAIC, OI may open 

an Assist to Staff. When a specific indication of potential wrongdoing is not 

immediately apparent in the description of an allegation concern or should 

the staff seek information regarding other regulatory matters, such as the 

condition of a licensee’s safety conscious work environment, OI’s 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 38

involvement may consist of assisting the NRC staff in determining whether 

wrongdoing is indicated or to obtain additional information or testimony 

related to a specific concern. 

(ii) When a specific indication of potential wrongdoing is identified following an 

OI Assist to Staff, OI will open a full investigation into the wrongdoing 

matter, and staff closure of the issue will be handled as indicated in 

Sections II.L.4(a), II.L.4(b), and II.L.4(c) above. When OI’s Assist to Staff 

does not yield a specific indication of wrongdoing or an issue warranting 

further regulatory review, the matter will be administratively closed by OI. 

Generally, OI will document the results of any interviews conducted to 

obtain information about specific concerns in response to staff requests. In 

these instances, the OAC or assigned staff may use the information as 

documented by OI to prepare the allegation closure documentation.

M. Alleger Response After Closure 

An alleger may provide feedback regarding NRC’s closure of his or her allegation by 

indicating that the NRC’s response was, in some way, insufficient, inaccurate, or 

otherwise unacceptable. In such instances, responsible action office staff and the OAC 

should review the alleger’s response against the closure correspondence provided to 

assess the validity of the alleger’s feedback. An ARB shall be reconvened so that the 

matter may be discussed with senior management and to determine appropriate 

additional actions. The NRC should provide a response to the alleger, normally within 

30 days of receiving the alleger’s feedback, describing actions taken by the NRC.

Occasionally, the NRC will require longer than 30 days to respond to an alleger’s 

response after closure, or the alleger’s response after closure will include a new 

allegation. In such instances, an initial response should be provided to the alleger 

acknowledging the alleger’s feedback and the new allegation (if applicable), and 

indicating that additional NRC feedback is forthcoming.

N. NRC Response to Fears of Retaliation 

1. The NRC may take action to prevent retaliation before it occurs at a licensee’s 

facility. This NRC action is independent of the Early ADR or DOL processes. 

2. If the NRC receives a credible report from an individual expressing reasonable fears 

of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, and the individual is willing to be 

identified to the licensee, the action office director should initiate actions to alert the 

licensee that the NRC has received information from an individual concerned that 

retaliation may occur for engaging in protected activities. 

3. The need to notify the licensee should be discussed at an ARB meeting with 

representatives from OGC or regional counsel and from OI. If the ARB considers it 

appropriate to notify the licensee, the ARB should make a recommendation to the 

regional administrator or headquarters office director that senior licensee 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 39

management be notified by either holding a documented meeting, a documented 

management telephone call, or issuing a letter requesting a written response. The 

general purpose of this interaction is to inform licensee management of the NRC’s 

knowledge of the matter, potential effects on the safety conscious work environment,

consequences to the licensee if discrimination was to occur, and the NRC’s intention 

to monitor the situation. So as not to expose the alleger to undue publicity, a letter

written to the licensee should not be docketed or otherwise made publicly available, 

and if a meeting is held, it should be closed to the public. If a letter is written to the 

licensee and requests a response, the letter will inform the licensee that the 

response should not be docketed or otherwise submitted to the NRC Document 

Control Desk.

4. When a number of individuals from the same licensee or organization express 

concern about the potential for retaliation or other management behaviors that 

discourage the reporting of safety issues, other actions may be warranted, especially 

if a history of discrimination findings or settlements exists. Actions might include an

inspection, investigation, survey, issuance of a “Chilling Effect Letter,” or other 

techniques for assessing the climate for raising concerns. See the terms “chilling 

effect” and “chilled work environment” in Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook and 

the Allegation Manual for more information.

O. Allegation Management System (AMS)

1. The AMS is a computerized information system that contains a summary of 

significant data pertinent to each allegation. The AMS is not a Privacy Act system of 

records because information cannot be retrieved by alleger name or by any type of 

identifier assigned to the alleger’s name. 

2. Allegations received by the NRC are entered in the AMS database, with each 

allegation concern being individually indicated and tracked. The AMS database

tracks allegations and allegation concerns from receipt to closure, including staff 

involvement, basic descriptive and status information, and reference to closure 

documentation. 

3. Sensitive information, such as names or other personal identifiers of non-NRC 

persons must not be entered in the AMS. All information entered must be 

unclassified, must not contain any SGI or any proprietary or commercial information 

(10 CFR 2.390), and must not violate the Privacy Act. 

4. AMS entries should not reveal information related to criminal or civil wrongdoing on 

the part of individuals or NRC licensees that could compromise NRC inspections and 

investigations concerning alleged events.

5. Access to the AMS database is normally limited to the AAA, OACs, other allegation 

support staff, and representatives of OIG because of the sensitive nature of the 

information. AMS reports are provided on a need-to-know basis for specified data.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 40

P. Handling Allegations That May Impact Licensing or Certification Decisions or 

Allegations That Are Filed Late

1. Ideally, all substantiated allegations concerning a particular licensing, certification, or 

operational matter will be satisfactorily resolved by the licensee before any license or 

certificate is issued or an operational decision is made. If an allegation is material to 

the staff’s findings for these decisions, these allegation concerns are termed “latefiled,” and the NRC must determine whether the staff is able to make its finding 

despite the existence of the allegation, taking into account factors such as the 

likelihood of substantiation and potential safety or other significance of the allegation 

to the required findings. The NRC’s evaluation of allegations that are not material to 

the staff’s required findings may be evaluated independent of the issuance of the 

license or certificate or operational decision. 

2. If an allegation concern is material to an issue in a licensing or certification 

proceeding, the action office will promptly consult the appropriate licensing or 

certifying office (if different from the action office) for assistance in determining 

appropriate action. If warranted, the action office is responsible for recommending to 

the licensing or certifying office that it notify the presiding officer in an administrative 

adjudicatory proceeding of the allegation concerns. The licensing or certifying office 

will consult with OGC when preparing such notifications.

3. For each pending license or certificate or operational decision, each action office will 

prepare an assessment of the safety significance of allegation concerns for which the 

NRC’s evaluation is not expected to be completed or, if substantiated, not expected 

to be resolved by the licensee before the NRC issues the license or certificate or 

makes the operational decision. When possible, this assessment will be forwarded to 

the responsible licensing or certifying office not less than 30 working days before the 

licensee has completed activities necessary to support license or certificate issuance 

or an operational decision (using the licensee’s estimate) and will include a 

recommendation as to whether any or all of these allegation concerns constitute 

grounds for delaying issuance of (or otherwise restricting) a license or certificate, or 

delaying operational approval (or otherwise restricting operation).

Q. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests 

1. Upon receipt of a FOIA request, it is normal practice under the Privacy Act to protect 

from release, an alleger’s identity or alleger-identifying information, unless mandated 

by the FOIA in some circumstances (see Section II of this directive and 

Section II.F.12 of this handbook). “Fingerprinting” information that may lead to 

identifying an alleger is normally redacted when responding to a FOIA request. In 

cases involving non-discrimination issues in which the NRC determines that it is 

appropriate to release the identity of an alleger because the alleger is considered 

“widely known” in association with an allegation concern, the responsible OAC will 

make reasonable efforts to inform the alleger before the FOIA release. The means of 

determining an alleger to be “widely known” in association with an allegation concern 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 41

and subsequently notifying the alleger about the information release are discussed in 

the Allegation Manual. (See definition of “widely known alleger” in Section IV, 

“Glossary,” of this handbook.)

2. Disclosures may be necessary to further the NRC mission or to address safety 

concerns; however, it is NRC policy to provide the maximum protection allowed by 

the FOIA to protect against the disclosure of the identity of all allegers. More specific 

guidance about allegation-related information that may or may not be disclosed in 

response to a FOIA request, based on the type of information requested and the 

source of the request, is provided in the Allegation Manual. 

R. Training of the NRC Staff 

Since any NRC employee may receive an allegation and since NRC employees must be 

able to recognize an allegation, all employees shall receive initial training about the 

implementation of the allegation process. The initial training should normally be provided 

to a new employee within 30 days of his or her starting date. After completing initial 

training, staff in the regional offices and the following headquarters offices shall receive 

allegation refresher training biennially: NMSS, NRO, NRR, NSIR, the Office of 

Congressional Affairs (OCA), OE, OEDO, OGC, OI, OIP, OPA, RES and SECY. Staff in 

each NRC Commissioner’s office are also to receive biennial allegation refresher training.

S. Allegation Guidance Memorandum (AGM)

An AGM will be issued, as necessary, between revisions to MD 8.8 to address changes 

in allegation program policy or to provide guidance on implementation of existing policy.

III. NRC CONTACTS FOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) INFORMATION

The NRC may contribute to the record in DOL adjudications. The NRC contacts for each type of 

request related to DOL information are as follows.

A. Requests by Individuals or by DOL

These requests may involve technical issues associated with protected activity, the 

organizational structure of nuclear industry employers, or NRC requirements. The NRC is 

available to assist cognizant DOL personnel and individuals with accessing NRC 

information, understanding technical issues, or determining whether an individual has 

engaged in protected activity. The initial contact for requests from individuals outside the 

agency is the AAA. However, allegation and enforcement staff in the regional or 

headquarters offices are the NRC contact if DOL is requesting information about a specific 

allegation. If this contact occurs, staff should respond promptly because DOL investigators 

have a short statutory time frame within which to complete their investigation (see 29 CFR 

Part 24, “U.S. Department of Labor Procedures for Handling Discrimination Complaints 

Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes”). The contact for legal advice is the 

Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, who will review the 

request, and if appropriate, transfer it to the proper NRC office for response.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 42

B. Requests for Reports From OI

Requests for reports or evidence developed by OI relevant to a complaint under ERA 

Section 211 shall be provided to the Director, OI, who will consult with the Director, 

OE. For cases that have been forwarded to DOJ for potential criminal prosecution, 

the Director, OI, must also consult with DOJ before responding to the request. 

C. Production or Disclosure in Response to Subpoenas or Demands of Courts

The NRC may be asked to provide documents or information, including witnesses, in a 

DOL proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR Part 9, Subpart D, “Production or Disclosure in 

Response to Subpoenas or Demands of Courts or Other Authorities.” The OGC contact 

for such requests is the Solicitor, OGC. 

D. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act

Information can be formally requested through the FOIA and the Privacy Act. The 

contact for such requests is the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, OCIO. 

E. Amicus Curiae Briefs

The NRC will consider filing amicus curiae briefs when it is determined that the 

outcome of an issue may affect the NRC’s enforcement of its regulations. The 

determination of whether to file a brief will depend on consideration of the facts and 

circumstances of the case and the importance of the issue to the NRC. All requests 

for amicus curiae briefs should be provided to the Assistant General Counsel for 

Materials Litigation and Enforcement. 

F. Correspondence

The NRC may correspond directly with the Secretary of Labor to express any opinions or 

concerns on issues raised in DOL proceedings. Requests for communications between 

the NRC and the Secretary of Labor should be provided to the Assistant General 

Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement. 

IV. GRANTING AND REVOKING CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE STATUS

This section provides guidance for granting and revoking confidential source status and for 

determining when the identity of an alleger who has been granted confidential source status 

may be released outside the NRC. While the discussion in this part focuses primarily on the 

granting or revoking of confidential source status for an individual who has raised an 

allegation to NRC, this guidance also applies to other confidential sources established by OI

during the course of a wrongdoing or discrimination investigation who are not considered to 

be allegers. For matters referred to OIG, as noted in Section II.J.4(i) of this handbook, the 

OIG follows its own guidance concerning the granting and revoking of confidentiality.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 43

A. General 

1. On April 5, 1996, the Commission approved a revision to the policy on confidentiality, 

which sets forth agencywide policy on protecting the identity of allegers and 

confidential sources, including allegers who are granted confidential source status. 

The Commission’s inspection and investigatory programs rely, in part, on individuals 

voluntarily coming forward with information about potential safety concerns or 

perceived wrongdoing. Protecting the identities of confidential sources is a significant 

factor in ensuring the voluntary flow of this information. This policy statement on 

confidentiality applies to all Commission offices and directs those offices to make 

their best efforts to protect the identity of any source. The guidance in this part and 

instructions in the Allegation Manual and the OI Investigations Procedures Manual 

provide for implementation of the Commission’s policy statement. 

2. Although the NRC recognizes the importance of confidentiality, the NRC does not 

believe that confidential source status should be granted to all individuals who 

provide information to the NRC, or that confidential source status should be routinely

granted to allegers, particularly in light of the identity protection afforded all allegers. 

Rather, the NRC believes that confidential source status should be granted only 

when necessary to acquire information related to the Commission’s responsibilities 

or when warranted by special circumstances. Confidential source status ordinarily 

should not be granted, for instance, when the individual is willing to provide 

information without being given confidential source status.

B. Granting Confidential Source Status 

1. Confidential source status may be offered to an alleger if the alleger is reluctant to 

provide information (a standardized confidentiality agreement form is available in the 

Allegation Manual). If an alleger makes a request for confidentiality, the NRC must 

determine whether or not a grant of confidential source status is warranted. The NRC 

will gather pertinent information regarding the alleger’s reason for the request, 

alleger involvement in and actions related to the information, regulatory jurisdiction, 

and whether the NRC or others may already have knowledge of the information. The 

Allegation Manual contains a list of typical questions to ask an alleger for whom the 

NRC may consider granting confidential source status. 

2. Depending on the information gathered from an alleger who has not requested 

confidential source status, a determination should be made as to whether or not granting 

confidential source status would be in the best interest of the agency. An authorized 

NRC employee may offer confidential source status if an alleger is not providing 

information for fear of identity disclosure (see Sections IV.B.4 and IV.B.7 of this 

handbook). In this instance, as on the occasion when an alleger requests confidentiality, 

pertinent information must be gathered, as noted in Section IV.B.1 of this handbook, to 

determine whether or not a grant of confidential source status is warranted. 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 44

3. When confidential source status is granted, the alleger is to be provided information 

regarding—

(a) The confidentiality agreement, 

(b) The sensitivity of the information the alleger is providing (including the potential 

that the information itself could reveal the source’s identity), 

(c) How the alleger’s confidentiality is controlled within the NRC, and 

(d) How the NRC will respond to questions about the alleger’s confidential source status 

(see the Allegation Manual regarding information provided to the confidential source). 

4. An NRC employee wishing to grant confidential source status must either be delegated 

the authority to do so or must seek authorization from the appropriate regional or 

headquarters official. Authorization can be prearranged as circumstances warrant, 

possibly involving a meeting with the alleger. The Executive Director for Operations 

(EDO) and the Director, OI, may designate those persons within their organizations who 

may grant confidential source status or may further delegate the authority to do so. As 

standard practice, regional administrators, headquarters office directors, and OI SAICs 

have received this designation from the EDO or the Director, OI.

5. Authority to grant confidential source status is to be documented in writing either 

through a standing delegation or an ad hoc authorization. In special circumstances, 

an oral authorization is permissible if it is subsequently confirmed in writing. The 

authority to grant confidential source status must be documented formally by the 

action office, such as in an internal regional or headquarters office procedure, in a 

memorandum to the OAC or, in the case of OI, in accordance with the OI 

Investigations Procedures Manual. 

6. Confidential source status may be temporarily given orally in circumstances in which it 

is impossible or inappropriate to sign a confidentiality agreement, such as when the 

information is obtained over the telephone, in a location not conducive to obtaining 

signatures, or (for OI only) when it is believed that insisting on signing an agreement 

document would cause the source to refuse to provide the allegation information. 

Under most of these circumstances, the confidentiality agreement usually will be 

signed within 2 weeks. If documentation is not or cannot be completed in that time 

frame, or may never be completed because of the source’s reluctance, the EDO or the 

responsible OI SAIC will determine whether confidentiality should continue (see 

Section IV.C of this handbook). If confidential source status is granted orally, this 

permission must be immediately documented by the person granting it and this 

documentation must be provided to the responsible OAC or, in the case of OI, in 

accordance with the OI Investigations Procedures Manual. 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 45

7. Office directors, regional administrators, and in the case of OI, SAICs shall be informed 

of each grant of confidential source status issued by their office under a delegation of 

authority. These senior officials shall approve any variance from the standard 

confidentiality agreement and each denial of confidential source status. 

8. OACs will maintain an accurate record of the status of grants of confidential source 

status made by their office or region and will maintain copies of signed confidentiality 

agreements. OI will maintain its records in accordance with the OI Investigations 

Procedures Manual. 

9. In contacts and correspondence with individuals who have been granted confidential 

source status, the NRC staff shall make their best effort to ensure that contacts and 

correspondence do not result in the disclosure of the individual as a confidential 

source. These efforts may include the use of non-Government return addresses, 

plain envelopes, and rental cars (as opposed to Government-owned vehicles). 

10. If at any time and for any reason confidentiality is breached or jeopardized, the 

appropriate regional administrator or headquarters office director should be informed 

and the confidential source should be advised. The director of the action office shall 

be responsible for reviewing the circumstances associated with the release of the 

identity of the confidential source and will ensure that necessary actions are taken to 

preclude repetition of the breach. This review and the actions taken must be 

documented in the allegation file or the OI confidential source file. The Allegation 

Manual provides guidance for staff actions after an inappropriate identity release.

C. Revocation of Confidential Source Status

1. A decision to revoke confidential source status can be made only by the 

Commission, the EDO, or the Director, OI, depending on the office that granted 

confidential source status. The Commission may revoke a grant made by the 

Commission or any office reporting to the Commission or the EDO. The EDO may 

revoke grants of confidential source status made by the EDO or by offices reporting 

to the EDO. The Director, OI may only revoke grants of confidential source status 

originally made by OI.

2. Confidential source status will be revoked only in extreme cases, such as when a 

confidentiality agreement is not signed within a reasonable time following an oral 

grant of confidential source status, when a confidential source takes an action so 

inconsistent with the grant of confidential source status that the action overrides the 

purpose of being granted confidential source status, when publicly disclosed 

information reveals the individual’s status as a confidential source, or when the 

individual has intentionally provided false information to the NRC. 

3. Before revoking confidential source status, the NRC will attempt to notify the 

confidential source and provide him or her with an opportunity to explain why 

confidential source status should not be revoked.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 46

D. Withdrawal of Confidential Source Status

The NRC official granting confidential source status may withdraw confidential source 

status without further approval, provided that the confidential source has made such a 

request in writing and the NRC official has confirmed that the requesting individual is the 

same person who was granted confidential source status, for example, by comparing the 

signature on the withdrawal request to the signature on the confidentiality agreement.

E. Official Disclosures

1. Disclosure to the Licensee or Other Affected Organization 

The identity of a confidential source may be released outside NRC if there is an OSI 

and the source agrees to the disclosure. The NRC staff will consult with the EDO 

before the identity disclosure. If the source cannot be reached to determine if he or 

she objects to the identity release, or does not agree to disclosure, the staff will 

contact the Commission for resolution.

2. Other Disclosures 

(a) Court Order 

A licensee or other entity could obtain a court order requiring NRC to divulge the 

identity of a confidential source. If this action occurs, the NRC will seek to 

minimize the disclosure through protective orders or other means.

(b) NRC Adjudicatory Bodies 

(i) The Commission, as the ultimate adjudicatory authority within the NRC, can 

require the NRC staff to reveal a confidential source. In a separate policy 

statement on “Investigations, Inspections, and Adjudicatory Proceedings”

(49 FR 36032; September 13, 1984), the Commission has provided that any 

decision by the presiding officer in an administrative adjudicatory matter to 

order disclosure of the identity of a confidential source must be automatically 

submitted to the Commission for review. 

(ii) In making such a decision, the Commission will consider whether the 

information provided by the confidential source is reasonably available through 

alternative means, whether the information relates directly to the substantive 

allegations at issue in the proceedings, the present employment position of the 

confidential source, whether a party’s right to present rebuttal evidence or to 

conduct the cross-examination will be violated if he or she is not provided the 

names, and whether disclosure is necessary to complete the record.

(iii) The Commission notes that the NRC may not have the option of dismissing 

a case to avoid disclosing a confidential source, such as when the identity of 

the source is material and relevant to a substantial safety issue or a 

licensing proceeding. 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 47

(c) Congress 

Disclosure to Congress may be required in response to a congressional 

request. Responding to such requests needs to be in accordance with the 

procedures listed in Chapter VI of the Internal Commission Procedures (ICPs) 

(available on the NRC external Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/internal.html), which addresses NRC responses to Congressional 

requests for sensitive documents. As specified in Chapter VI of the ICPs, if such 

requests are received by an office other than OCA, the requests should be 

referred to OCA for handling. The procedures in Chapter VI also provide that 

appropriate coordination with pertinent offices will occur as requests are 

processed. In the event information involving a confidential source is provided to 

Congress, Congress should be informed that the information provided involves a 

confidential source and should be protected from any disclosure that might serve 

to identify the confidential source.

(d) Federal and State Agencies 

(i) If another agency demonstrates that it requires the identity of a confidential 

source or information that would reveal such a source’s identity in furtherance 

of its statutory responsibilities, and agrees to provide the same protection to 

the source’s identity that the NRC promised when it granted confidential 

source status, the action office OAC or OI will attempt to contact the source to 

determine if he or she objects to the release. If the source is reached and 

does not object, the EDO or his or her designee, or the Director, OI, or his or 

her designee, is authorized to provide the information or the identity to the 

other agency. However, if the source cannot be reached or objects to the 

release of his or her identity, the source’s identity may not be released without 

the Commission’s approval, except as noted in Section IV.E.2(d)(ii) below. 

The affected agency may then request that the Commission release the 

source’s identity. Ordinarily, the source’s identity will not be provided to 

another agency over the source’s objection. In extraordinary circumstances in 

which furtherance of the public interest requires a release of the source’s 

identity, the Commission may release the identity of a confidential source to 

another agency over the objections of the source. In these cases, however, 

the other agency must agree to provide the same protection to the source’s 

identity that was promised by the NRC. 

(ii) As an exception to Section IV.E.2(d)(i), when OI and the DOJ are pursuing 

the same matter or when OI is working with another law enforcement agency, 

the EDO or the Director, OI, may reveal the identity of a confidential source to 

DOJ or the other law enforcement agency, as needed, without notifying the 

individual or consulting with the Commission. 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 48

V. INITIATING, PRIORITIZING, AND TERMINATING INVESTIGATIONS BY THE 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)

This section provides guidance to staff on advising OI of matters of potential wrongdoing 

and alleged discrimination, submitting pertinent information to OI regarding the priority of 

investigations, and resolving differences between regional and headquarters offices 

regarding investigations, the initiation or termination of investigations, and the resolution of 

matters not investigated.

A. Staff Requirement To Advise OI of Matters of Potential Wrongdoing 

1. Wrongdoing consists of either a willful violation of regulatory requirements through 

deliberate action or a violation resulting from careless disregard of regulatory 

requirements. All NRC employees should be alert for matters involving potential 

wrongdoing, as such matters must be reviewed with OI, whether they are identified 

by an alleger, a licensee representative acting in his or her official capacity, or the 

NRC staff. The staff will assist OI in the review of matters involving potential 

wrongdoing at an early stage to facilitate the overall investigative process. 

2. Regional and headquarters offices are required to promptly notify OI when the staff is 

aware of an allegation or other matter that could involve wrongdoing on the part of 

licensees or other affected organizations or their contractors. Verbal notifications to 

OI are acceptable. Generally, these matters are brought forward by the staff through 

routine reporting channels; however, NRC’s open door policy provides that NRC 

employees may contact OI directly when circumstances so dictate (see MD 10.160, 

“Open Door Policy”).

3. In addition to the discussion in Sections V.A.1 and V.A.2 above related to the staff 

requirement to advise OI of matters involving potential wrongdoing, it is noted that 

the action office directors and the Director, OE, have the authority to request OI to 

conduct an investigation.

B. Submittal of Information to OI

1. After OI is initially notified of a matter involving potential wrongdoing, pertinent 

information (e.g., telephone records, allegation receipt documentation, supporting 

documents, reference information) should be subsequently transmitted to OI. ARB 

meetings are normally used to coordinate with OI on followup actions related to 

wrongdoing issues. An OI representative must be invited to any ARB meeting that is 

scheduled to discuss alleged wrongdoing. 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 49

2. OI is also provided information related to allegations of discrimination under 

Section 211 of the ERA and invited to ARB meetings at which such matters are 

discussed. If the ARB determines, with OGC or regional counsel support, that an alleger 

has articulated a prima facie showing of potential discrimination, the ARB will assign an 

action to offer the alleger the opportunity to use Early ADR as a means of obtaining 

issue resolution (see Section II.I.3 of this handbook). If Early ADR is employed and is 

successful in obtaining a settlement between the alleger and his or her employer or 

former/prospective employer, OI will not initiate an investigation of the discrimination 

concern, as long as the agreement is reviewed by OGC and no restrictive covenants in 

violation of the applicable employee protection regulation exist. If Early ADR is not used 

by the alleger, if the alleger or the licensee has been unresponsive to the offer of Early 

ADR, or if the alleger is unsuccessful in establishing a settlement with his or her 

employer or former or prospective employer, the ARB will recommend that OI initiate an 

investigation.

3. Potential wrongdoing or alleged discrimination matters, regardless of their origin, should 

be coordinated with the OAC for entry into the allegation process. Allegation processing 

will prompt discussion of these matters at an ARB meeting, with OI in attendance, where

it is determined whether a potential wrongdoing or alleged discrimination matter is to be 

investigated. Responsible staff should provide a draft Notice of Violation related to an 

alleged wrongdoing matter, either at the initial ARB meeting, or shortly thereafter, to 

clarify the regulation that may have been willfully violated. If the ARB determines that an 

investigation is to be initiated, a priority of high, normal, or low will be assigned to the 

investigation, using guidance set forth in the Allegation Manual. If unable to attend the 

ARB, representatives of OGC or the regional counsel, as appropriate, will be consulted 

to determine whether there is an appropriate regulatory basis for an investigation to be 

conducted by OI. 

4. The priority of an investigation being conducted by OI may be adjusted as 

appropriate by the affected regional administrator or headquarters office director at 

periodic meetings held with OI to discuss investigation priority and status. The 

Director, OE, should be consulted, as appropriate, in applying the priority guidance.

C. Resolution of Differences

1. After it has been recommended that OI initiate an investigation, OI will generate an 

Investigation Status Report (ISR) with a case priority as noted by the ARB, and provide a 

copy to the OAC. OI will conduct a preliminary investigation during a 90-day evaluation 

phase and then set the estimated completion date if the investigation continues. If there 

are any concerns involving the estimated completion date assigned to the investigation 

by OI or about an OI decision not to investigate a particular matter, the directors of the 

associated regional office, headquarters office, and OE shall be promptly notified so that 

efforts may be initiated to resolve the difference of opinion. 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 50

2. Headquarters offices that are action offices along with OE are responsible for 

ensuring that necessary investigations are conducted within their areas of 

responsibility. If a particular headquarters office believes that the priority assigned to 

a matter under OI investigation should be different from that established by the 

regional office at an ARB or at a periodic OI priority and status discussion with the 

regional administrator or his or her designee, the headquarters office should contact 

promptly the regional office to resolve the difference of opinion. 

3. If a decision cannot be reached regarding the appropriate priority for an investigation, 

the director of the associated headquarters office will review a licensing-related 

matter under investigation, and the Director, OE, will review an enforcement-related 

matter under investigation. The headquarters office director will consult with the 

Director, OI, in an additional effort to reach a conclusion about OI case priority. If the 

issue of assigned investigation priority remains unresolved after such a review, the 

Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, 

Administration, and Human Capital (DEDM) will be consulted for resolution. 

4. The DEDM shall attempt to resolve any remaining differences over the need, priority, 

and estimated completion date, for investigations with the Director, OI, and the 

director of the responsible headquarters office. If unsuccessful in resolving the 

differences, the DEDM shall refer the matter to the EDO for resolution.

D. Initiation of an Investigation by OI

1. An investigation is an activity conducted by OI to independently gather and examine

testimonial, documentary, and physical evidence, and relevant facts, to assist the

staff, OE, and the DOJ in evaluating matters of potential wrongdoing or 

discrimination. When an OI investigation is initiated, it begins with certain preliminary 

investigative steps by OI to evaluate the nature and substance of a matter of alleged 

wrongdoing. If the preliminary investigation efforts indicate that the allegation, if true, 

was more likely to have been a result of wrongdoing and that the priority assigned to 

the investigation by the ARB was warranted, OI will continue the investigation to 

follow appropriate investigative leads to their logical conclusion. Investigative efforts 

will be documented in an OI report of investigation, or closure memorandum, as 

appropriate, with copies provided to the associated headquarters office, OGC, OE, 

and appropriate regional offices. 

2. OI will seek the Commission’s guidance before initiating a full investigation relating to 

the character or integrity of an individual when the character or suitability aspects of 

the matter being considered for investigation are unrelated to a violation of NRC 

regulatory requirements.

3. OI may self-initiate investigations or assists as deemed appropriate by the 

Director, OI.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 51

E. Termination of Investigations

1. A case may be closed by OI without further investigation if preliminary investigative 

findings and coordination with the staff indicate that even if the circumstances 

surrounding the alleged wrongdoing issue were true, there would be no violation of a 

regulatory requirement. 

2. The decision to terminate an OI investigation will be made after a case-by-case 

assessment by the responsible OI SAIC as based on preliminary investigative 

findings, the investigation priority, investigative resource limitations, and any other 

pertinent contributing factor(s). OI will notify the associated regional or headquarters 

office of its basis for closure.

F. Resolution of Matters Returned by OI Without Investigation

1. Matters returned to the staff by OI without having completed a full investigation for the 

reasons discussed in Section V.E. of this handbook will be handled by the staff as part of 

its established process for resolving inspection findings. Staff followup may include 

additional inspections, written requests for information from the licensee, meetings 

between the staff and the licensee, proceeding with enforcement action by the original or 

supplemented inspection findings, or other actions, as appropriate. If the matter warrants 

a higher priority after supplemental information is developed or the original findings are 

reassessed, the matter may be discussed again with OI for possible investigation under

the guidance specified in this handbook. 

2. Matters closed without a full investigation by OI may be closed by the staff when the 

appropriate regional administrator or headquarters office director determines that the 

issues involved do not warrant the expenditure of additional agency resources, 

assuming enforcement is not warranted.

VI. GLOSSARY

Action Office

The NRC regional or headquarters office that is responsible for reviewing and taking 

action, as appropriate, to evaluate an allegation. The Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation (NRR), the Office of New Reactors (NRO), the Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

(NSIR), and the Office of International Programs (OIP) are the action offices for 

allegations that relate to matters under the purview of the headquarters office, such as 

generic and vendor issues. The Office of Investigations (OI), the Office of Enforcement 

(OE), the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and the Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG), and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) are not considered action 

offices for this management directive.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 52

Adverse Action

An action that may adversely impact the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of 

employment including, but not limited to, a failure to receive a routine annual pay increase 

or bonus, demotion or arbitrary downgrade of a position, transfer to a position that is

recognized to have a lesser status or be less desirable (e.g., from a supervisory to a nonsupervisory position), failure to promote, overall performance appraisal downgrade, verbal 

or written counselling, or other forms of constructive discipline, or termination.

Agreement State

A State that has entered into a formal agreement with NRC by which the State assumes 

regulatory responsibility over certain byproduct, source, and small quantities of special 

nuclear material.

Allegation

A declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy associated with 

NRC-regulated activities, the validity of which has not been established. Excluded from 

this definition are—

• Technical questions generated by NRC staff. NRC staff members should direct their 

technical concerns to NRC management for evaluation within appropriate processes 

(e.g., inspection program, differing professional opinion program);

• Inadequacies provided to NRC staff by licensee employees acting in their official capacity;1

• Matters already entered into a licensee’s corrective action program that are not 

otherwise accompanied by an assertion of inadequate licensee followup;

2

• Matters being handled by other formal processes, such as petitions for rulemaking, 

petitions filed under 10 CFR 2.206 or contentions filed in hearings or other formal 

proceedings;

• Misconduct by NRC employees or NRC contractors;

 1 This exclusion is intended to clarify that inadequacies discussed during official routine conversations 

between licensee employees and NRC staff are not intended to be treated as allegations. However, if 

the information provided by the licensee employee involves a wrongdoing issue or the employee 

expresses dissatisfaction with the licensee’s handling of the issue or another licensee, the information 

should be treated as an allegation.

2 Licensee corrective action processes provide the primary mechanism for the identification and resolution 

of problems. Once an issue is entered into the corrective action process, the licensee evaluates an 

identified problem, categorizes it in terms of safety significance, and takes action toward resolution. Unless 

a concerned individual can articulate why an item entered into the corrective action process was not or will 

not be handled properly by the licensee, such items should not be processed as allegations.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 53

• Non-radiological occupational health and safety issues;

• Concerns related to Agreement State licensee activities when the concerned individual 

agrees to have his or her concerns and identity provided to the Agreement State; 

• Performance or wrongdoing concerns regarding organizations or personnel from 

State regulatory bodies that oversee Agreement State licensee activities;

• Matters reported to NRC by Agreement States resulting from Agreement State 

inspections; and

• Licensing activities that are forwarded to NRC that involve law enforcement and 

other Government agencies.

Note: Although the source is not external to the NRC, matters identified by NRC staff 

that involve potential wrongdoing and that prompt investigation by OI are also tracked as 

allegations to facilitate headquarters and regional office monitoring of related OI 

followup. It is also noted that allegation concerns are not limited to matters that 

constitute a potential violation of NRC requirements.3

Allegation File

A file that contains the documentation concerning an allegation, including, but not limited 

to, correspondence, memoranda to the file, interview records, inspection reports, 

summaries of telephone conversations, discussions, and meetings, and pertinent 

information from related Office of Investigations (OI) activities. The hard-copy allegation 

file is the official agency record.

Allegation Guidance Memorandum (AGM)

A guidance document, issued by the Agency Allegation Advisor (AAA), as necessary, 

between revisions to Management Directive 8.8, to address changes in allegation 

program policy or to provide guidance on implementation of existing policy.

Allegation Management System (AMS)

A computerized information system that contains a summary of significant data pertinent 

to each allegation.

 3 As an example, a concern about a Commission policy issue, such as a safety conscious work 

environment (SCWE) problem at a facility is an allegation because of its potential bearing on the 

willingness of personnel to raise safety issues associated with NRC-regulated activities. While a 

substantiated concern in this area provides important input to the NRC’s assessment of facility 

performance, a Notice of Violation cannot be issued because there is no applicable regulation. 
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 54

Allegation Manual

A guidance document to assist the NRC staff in implementing the allegation program in 

practice. Intended for internal use by NRC staff who receive, evaluate, and respond to 

allegations, the Allegation Manual contains instructions, correspondence templates, and 

reference information to support allegation processing. The Allegation Manual is 

maintained by Office of Enforcement (OE) on the NRC internal Web site at 

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/OE. Suggestions for changes or additions to the Allegation 

Manual should be provided to OE.

Allegation Review Board (ARB) 

A board established by regional administrators and headquarters office directors to 

determine the safety significance and appropriate NRC followup for each allegation. The 

ARB consists of a chairperson (an action office director, division director, deputy 

director, or senior manager designee), an Office Allegation Coordinator, and at least one 

other responsible person from the action office. Other personnel, as necessary, including 

staff from the Office of Investigations (OI), OE (or regional enforcement personnel), and 

the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) (or regional counsel) may participate as 

deemed necessary by the ARB chairperson.

Alleger

An individual who or an organization that submits an allegation to NRC or that provides 

information in a public forum that is recognized as an allegation involving a nuclear or 

radiological safety matter or possible wrongdoing related to a nuclear or radiological 

safety matter. Anonymous concerns are accepted.

Amicus Curiae

A legal term meaning “friend of the court.” The name for a brief filed with the court by an 

individual who or organization that is not a party to the litigation, but who has views with 

respect to the subject matter of the litigation.

Chilled Work Environment

A condition where the chilling effect is not isolated (e.g., multiple individuals, functional 

groups, shift crews, or levels of workers within the organization are affected). A chilled 

work environment is often referred to as a condition that is the opposite of a safety 

conscious work environment. 

Chilling Effect

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.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 55

Confidential Source

An individual who requests that NRC formally confirm, in writing, its intent to protect the 

individual’s identity. This confirmation is usually provided through a signed confidentiality 

agreement” (a standardized confidentiality agreement form is available in the Allegation 

Manual).

Confidentiality

Identity protection for an alleger who has been granted confidential source status. (See 

Section VI, “Glossary,” of this handbook, for definitions of “identity protection” and 

“confidential source.”)

Discrimination

Adverse action taken by an employer against an employee, at least in part, for engaging 

in NRC protected activity.

Early-Alternative Dispute Resolution (Early-ADR)

A process involving the use of a neutral mediator to facilitate discussion between an 

alleger and his or her employer (or former or prospective employer) in an effort to 

facilitate timely resolution of a discrimination concern as an alternative to an OI 

investigation. The process is voluntary and applies only to allegers who have articulated 

a prima facie showing of potential discrimination (see NUREG/BR-0313, 

“Pre-Investigation ADR Program,” available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/brochures/br0313/).

Identity Protection

The protection of information that directly or otherwise could identify an alleger by name 

and the fact that an alleger provided information to NRC. For an alleger who has been 

granted confidential source status, identity protection is also referred to as 

“confidentiality.”

Inspection (Technical Review)

For the purposes of this directive, an evaluation conducted by NRC staff and used to 

evaluate an allegation.

Investigation

An activity conducted by the Office of Investigations to independently gather and 

examine testimonial, documentary, and physical evidence, and relevant facts to assist 

the staff, OE, or the Department of Justice in evaluating allegations of wrongdoing 

and/or discrimination.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 56

Licensee

For the purposes of this management directive, an organization or individual, or a 

contractor, a subcontractor, or a vendor to an organization or individual that is an 

applicant for, or holder of, a license, permit, or certification issued pursuant to NRC 

regulations to operate a facility or to use, manufacture, produce, transfer, receive, 

acquire, own, possess, distribute, transport, import, or export specified quantities of 

byproduct, source, or special nuclear material.

Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC)

A designated staff member in a regional or headquarters office who serves as the point 

of contact for that action office regarding the processing of allegations.

OI Assist to Staff

A review conducted by OI when there is no specific indication of wrongdoing and 

responsible NRC staff has requested OI’s investigative expertise to assist in a matter of 

regulatory concern (e.g., interviewing skills to obtain relevant information).

Overriding Safety Issue

An issue that may represent an actual or potential immediate, significant, or immediate 

and significant threat to public health, safety, or security, warranting timely action by the 

licensee to evaluate and address the issue.

Presiding Officer

The Commission, an administrative law judge, an administrative judge, an Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board, or other person designated in accordance with the provisions of 

10 CFR Part 2, presiding over the conduct of a hearing conducted under the provisions 

of 10 CFR Part 2.

Prima Facie Showing of Discrimination

Facts provided by an alleger that create a reasonable inference that an employer took 

an adverse action against the alleger for having engaged in protected activity.

Specifically, the alleger must provide facts indicating that (1) the alleger engaged in 

protected activity, (2) an adverse action was taken against the alleger, (3) persons 

responsible for the adverse action had knowledge of the alleger’s protected activity, and 

(4) the protected activity was, at least in part, a reason for the adverse action. In such 

circumstances, further investigation and/or development of evidence is needed to 

establish whether discrimination actually occurred.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 57

Protected Activity

Activity related to the administration or enforcement of a requirement imposed under the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 

amended, which include, but are not limited to, providing NRC or the employer with 

information about alleged violations of either statute or any requirements imposed under 

either statute; refusing to engage in any practice made unlawful under either statute if 

the employee identifies the alleged illegality to the employer; requesting NRC to institute 

action against the employer for administration or enforcement of these requirements; 

testifying before NRC, Congress, or in any Federal or State proceeding regarding any 

provision of the statutes; and assisting or participating in, or preparing to assist or 

participate in, these activities.

Receiving Office

The regional or headquarters office that initially receives an allegation. If an allegation 

falls within the functional responsibility of the receiving office, the action office and the 

receiving office will be the same.

Redaction

The process of concealing information to reasonably assure that a document related to 

an allegation does not contain alleger identifying information or classified, SGI, sensitive 

security, privacy, or proprietary information.

Referral

Each of the following three actions is categorized as a referral:

• A request for another agency or external entity (other than the licensee) to provide 

allegation-related feedback, 

• The provision of an issue to another agency or entity in its entirety when the issue is 

not an allegation, 

• The provision of an issue to NRC OIG because it relates to suspected improper 

conduct by NRC employees or NRC contractors, or mismanagement of agency 

programs or operations. 

Specifically, an issue is “referred” when (a) the NRC receiving office retains 

administrative responsibility for the allegation-related concern-in-question (i.e., is also 

the action office), but must obtain feedback from another agency or entity to respond to 

the concern (e.g., FEMA (for offsite emergency preparedness issues); (b) the issue is 

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

office to the appropriate external agency or entity (e.g., EPA (for issues related to 

Superfund sites) or DOE (for radioactive materials issues under DOE purview)); or 

(c) the issue-in-question is to be forwarded by the NRC receiving office to NRC OIG as a 

matter involving potential NRC staff or contractor misconduct.
DH 8.8 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Date Approved: 01/29/2016

For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog. 58

Regional State Agreement Officer (RSAO)

A designated staff member in a regional office who serves as the point of contact for the 

regional office and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) 

regarding Agreement State radiation control programs. The RSAO provides technical 

support regarding the assessment of allegation matters involving Agreement State 

radiation control programs and provides a liaison function for allegations referred to 

Agreement States.

Request for Information (RFI)

A request by the action office for information from the licensee regarding the validity of an 

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

Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE)

A work environment in which employees are encouraged to raise safety concerns, are 

free to raise concerns to both their management and NRC without fear of retaliation, 

where their concerns are properly reviewed, given the appropriate priority, and are 

appropriately resolved, and where timely feedback is provided.

Staff

NRC technical, investigative, and other administrative members.

Transfer

An NRC internal exchange of an allegation concern from the NRC receiving office to the 

NRC regional or headquarters office with responsibility for addressing the allegation (i.e., 

the action office).

Widely-Known Alleger

An alleger who has publicly identified himself or herself to the media, held a press 

conference, or is otherwise identified in a public setting as the individual who raised a 

specific allegation concern to the NRC.

Wrongdoing

A willful violation of regulatory requirements through deliberate action or a violation resulting 

from careless disregard of regulatory requirements. See Section V, “Initiating, Prioritizing, 

and Terminating Investigations by the Office of Investigations (OI),” of this handbook.