ALLEGATION MANUAL

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Enforcement 

Washington, DC 20555
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

i

Allegation Manual - Table of Contents 

1.0 The NRC Allegation Program ........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Program Description ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Policy and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 2

1.3 History of the NRC Allegation Program ............................................................................ 2

1.4 Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 8

1.5 Training ...................................................................................................................... 8

1.6 Allegation Guidance Memorandum (AGM) ....................................................................... 9

1.7 NRC Public Website Information Related to the NRC Allegation Program ........................ 9

2.0 Responsibilities and Authorities .......................................................................................11

3.0 Allegation Intake ..............................................................................................................12

3.1 Allegation Receipt ...........................................................................................................12

3.1.a Allegation Definition .....................................................................................................12

3.1.b Alleger Definition ..........................................................................................................12

3.1.c Collect calls ..................................................................................................................13

3.1.d NRC Staff Member/Alleger Interaction .........................................................................13

3.1.e Allegation Receipt and Provision of Identity Protection Information ..............................13

3.1.e.1 Receiving the Allegation .......................................................................................13

3.1.e.2 Allegation Receipt by Non-Technical Personnel ....................................................14

3.1.e.3 Allegation Receipt Date ........................................................................................14

3.1.f Providing NRC Contact Information to the Alleger ........................................................15

3.1.f.1 OAC Contact Information ......................................................................................15

3.1.f.2 The NRC Safety Hotline ........................................................................................15

3.1.g Caller Identification.......................................................................................................16

3.1.h Providing an Allegation to the Appropriate Action Office ..............................................16

3.1.i Alleger Request for No Further Contact .......................................................................18

3.1.j Receipt of Security-Related Allegations .......................................................................19

3.1.k Off-the-Record Information ...........................................................................................19

3.1.l Alleger Interview ..........................................................................................................19

3.1.m NRC/Alleger Meeting Location .....................................................................................20

3.1.n Dealing with Hostile/Abusive Interaction .......................................................................20

3.1.o Information to be Obtained/Provided During the Initial Contact with the Alleger ...........20

3.2 Allegation Receipt Considerations and Handling Scenarios ............................................27

3.2.a Receipt of a Concern Involving an Agreement State ....................................................27

3.2.a.1 State Licensee and Agreement State Performance Concerns ..............................27

3.2.a.2 Information to Obtain/Provide Regarding an Agreement State-Related Concern ..28

3.2.a.3 Allegation of Discrimination against an Agreement State Licensee .......................29

3.2.a.4 Actions If Concerned Individual Does Not Agree to Contact the Agreement State 30

3.2.a.5 Actions If Unable to Determine Whether Individual Objects to Agreement State 

Contact .............................................................................................................31

3.2.a.6 Receipt of Both Agreement State Licensee and Agreement State Performance 

Concerns ..............................................................................................................31

3.2.a.7 Concerns Involving Both an Agreement State Licensee and Another Federal 

Agency .................................................................................................................31

3.2.b Processing Potential Wrongdoing Matters Identified by NRC Staff ...............................32

3.2.b.1 NRC Staff Identification of Potential Wrongdoing ..................................................32

3.2.b.2 Identifying Potential Wrongdoing in Testimony Provided to the NRC ....................32

3.2.b.3 ARB Consideration of NRC Staff-Identified Wrongdoing .......................................33

3.2.b.4 Identifying Potential Wrongdoing in Licensee Corrective Action Program 

Documentation......................................................................................................33
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

ii

3.2.c Processing Potential Wrongdoing Matters Identified by the Licensee ...........................33

3.2.c.1 Licensee-Identified Potential Wrongdoing .............................................................33

3.2.c.2 Actions When Licensee Informs NRC about a Completed Investigation into an 

Internally-Raised Discrimination Concern .............................................................34

3.2.d Processing Allegations Received in Letters to the Commission or the EDO .................35

3.2.d.1 Allegations Received by the Commission or the EDO ...........................................35

3.2.d.2 Actions When Allegation-Related Information in SECY/EDO Ticketed 

Correspondence is Not Initially Recognized as an Allegation ................................36

3.2.d.3 SECY/EDO Retention of Allegation-Related Documentation.................................36

3.2.d.4 Allegation Correspondence/Closure Documentation Involving SECY/EDO 

Ticketed Correspondence .....................................................................................36

3.2.e Processing Allegations Received by the OIG ...............................................................37

3.2.f Receipt of Allegations by Electronic Mail ......................................................................37

3.2.f.1 NRC Actions in Response to an Allegation Received by E-Mail ............................37

3.2.f.2 Response to Allegations Received by E-Mail When Other Contact Information 

is Not Available ....................................................................................................38

3.2.f.3 Suggested Format of Allegation Correspondence Provided by E-Mail ..................38

3.2.f.4 Handling E-mail Request to Verify Information at an Alternate Website ................39

3.2.g Allegations Received via the NRC Public Website .......................................................39

3.2.g.1 NRC Public Website Points of Contact .................................................................39

3.2.g.2 Providing Allegations Received on the NRC Public Website to the Responsible 

Action Office .........................................................................................................39

3.2.h Handling Allegations That May Impact Licensing or Certification Decisions or 

Allegations That Are Filed Late ....................................................................................40

3.2.h.1 “Late-Filed” Allegations .........................................................................................40

3.2.h.2 Notifications regarding “Late-Filed” Allegations.....................................................40

3.2.h.3 Assessment of Safety Significance of “Late-Filed” Allegations..............................41

3.2.h.4 Determining the Resolution of a Substantiated Material Allegation .......................41

3.2.i Allegations Provided to the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer (HOO) ...................42

3.2.i.1 Receipt of Allegation-Related Calls by the HOO ...................................................42

3.2.i.2 Processing Allegation-Related Information Received by the HOO ........................42

3.2.i.3 Re-Contacting the Alleger to Obtain Additional Information Related to HOO Calls 42

3.2.i.4 Handling Non-Allegation Issues Received by the HOO .........................................42

3.2.i.5 Allegation Calls to the HOO During Normal Work Hours .......................................43

3.2.j Allegations Provided by Media Personnel or Identified in Media Outlets ......................43

3.2.j.1 Allegations in the Media ........................................................................................43

3.2.j.2 Information Received Directly from Media Personnel ............................................43

3.2.j.3 Information Identified in Media Outlets ..................................................................44

3.2.k Allegations Provided by State, Local, or Other Federal Government Officials ..............46

3.2.k.1 Determining Whether Written Feedback to a State, Local, or Federal 

Government Official is Necessary .........................................................................46

3.2.k.2 Content of Written Correspondence to State, Local, or Federal Government

Official ..................................................................................................................47

3.2.l Allegations Raised in an NRC Public Meeting ..............................................................47

3.2.l.1 Public Meeting Definition ......................................................................................47

3.2.l.2 Receipt of an Allegation During a Public Meeting ..................................................47

3.2.l.3 Considering Wider Distribution of the Response to an Allegation Raised During 

a Public Meeting ...................................................................................................48

3.2.m 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions and Allegations Forwarded to Staff via the 10 CFR 2.206 

Petition Process ..........................................................................................................49

3.2.m.1 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions .........................................................................................49
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

iii

3.2.m.2 Acceptance/Rejection Criteria for 2.206 Petition Processing .................................49

3.2.m.3 Concerns Forwarded to the Staff After Rejection from 2.206 Process ...................50

3.2.m.4 Identity Protection Considerations for Processing Allegation Concerns Related 

to Matters Rejected by the 2.206 Process ............................................................51

3.2.m.5 Closure of an Allegation Later Submitted to and Accepted for Processing Under 

2.206 ....................................................................................................................51

3.2.m.6 2.206 Petition Related to a Similar or Identical Existing Allegation – Exclusion 

from Closure Timeliness Metrics ...........................................................................51

3.2.n Allegation-Related Information Requests from and Outreach to Members of Congress 

or State Officials ...........................................................................................................51

3.2.n.1 Responding to Requests for Allegation-Related Information from Members of 

Congress or State Officials ...................................................................................51

3.2.n.2 Considering Outreach to Members of Congress or State Officials.........................52

3.2.o Inspections Requested and Potential Violations Raised per 10 CFR 19.16(a) and 

10 CFR 19.15(b) ..........................................................................................................53

3.2.o.1 Processing Requests Under 10 CFR 19.16(a) and 10 CFR 19.15(b) as .................

Allegations ............................................................................................................53

3.2.o.2 10 CFR 19.16 – Requests by Workers for Inspection............................................53

3.2.o.3 10 CFR 19.15 – Consultation with Workers during Inspections .............................53

3.2.p Allegations Related to the Distribution of Products Containing Exempt Quantities of 

Byproduct Material .......................................................................................................53

3.2.p.1 Exempt Distribution and Possession Licenses - Background ................................53

3.2.p.2 Processing Allegations Related to Exempt Distribution and Possession License 

Issues ...................................................................................................................54

3.2.q Receipt of Additional Concerns from the Same Alleger Before NRC Evaluation ...........56

3.2.q.1 Receipt/Acknowledgment of Additional Concerns from the Same Alleger .............56

3.2.q.2 Additional Concerns Identified in an Alleger's Interview Transcript ........................56

3.2.r Allegations that are “Vague” or Lack Sufficient Detail to Enable NRC Evaluation ..........56

3.2.s Identification of Allegations by OI Staff or from OI Interview Transcript Review - 

Determination of Allegation Receipt Date .....................................................................57

3.2.t Processing Allegations Related to Combined License (COL) Applicants ......................57

3.2.t.1 Starting Point for COL Applicant Allegation Processing ........................................57

3.2.t.2 Rejected COL Application - Treatment of “Allegation-Like” Issues Provided to NRC 

While the COL Application is Rejected and Before Application Re-submittal ........58

3.2.t.3 Responsible NRC Offices for Allegation Issues Related to COL Applicants ..........58

3.2.t.4 Processing Allegations at a Co-Located Site ........................................................59

3.2.t.5 Applying the Allegation Process to COL Applicant Contractors, Subcontractors, 

and Vendors .........................................................................................................59

3.2.t.6 Applying of the Allegation Process to COL Issues Related to Foreign Vendors ....60

3.2.t.7 Concerns Related to the COL Review ..................................................................60

3.2.t.8 Expectations for CAP and SCWE Programs in Construction Organizations ..........60

3.2.u “Non-Allegations” .........................................................................................................61

3.2.u.1 What is a non-allegation? .....................................................................................61

3.2.u.2 MD 8.8 Exclusions to the Allegation Definition ......................................................62

3.2.u.3 NRC Staff-Identified Wrongdoing Issues Not Investigated by OI ...........................63

3.2.u.4 Proposed License/Certificate Changes or License/Certificate Application Issues ..63

3.2.u.5 Tracking DOL Proceedings Subsequent to a Discrimination Concern Settled in 

Early ADR .............................................................................................................64

3.2.u.6 Use of AMS to Track “Non-Allegations ..................................................................64

3.2.u.7 NRC Staff or Contractor Misconduct Issues Related to an Allegation ...................65

3.2.u.8 Exclusion of “Non-Allegation” Documentation from ADAMS..................................65
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

iv

3.2.u.9 Responding to a Concerned Individual’s Request that a “Non-Allegation” Matter 

Be Processed as an Allegation..............................................................................66

3.2.u.10 Charging Work Time Related to “Non-Allegations”................................................66

3.2.v Allegations Involving Multiple Allegers..........................................................................67

3.2.v.1 Allegation Received from a Group ........................................................................67

3.2.v.2 Receiving the Same Allegation Concern from Multiple Individuals ........................67

3.2.w Allegations Regarding the Inappropriate Sale of Radioactive Material on the Internet ..68

3.2.x Discrimination Concerns Received/Processed by Other Authorities Prior to NRC ........68

3.2.x.1 DOL Receipt of Discrimination Allegation Prior to NRC .........................................68

3.2.x.2 NRC-Related Discrimination Concerns Processed by Other Authorities ...............68

3.2.y Considerations Regarding Concerns about Issues Already Under Inspection or 

Investigation .................................................................................................................69

3.2.z Concerns Related to a Licensee Employee Concerns Program ...................................71

3.2.aa Concerns Raised by Current NRC Employees About Activities at a Former 

Employer ......................................................................................................................72

3.3 Processing the Received Allegation ................................................................................73

3.3.a Actions of the Receiving Employee and Action Office Staff ..........................................73

3.3.a.1 Informing Responsible Staff About a Received Allegation .....................................73

3.3.a.2 Documenting an Allegation Concern .....................................................................73

3.3.a.3 Forwarding Allegation Reference Documentation to the OAC ...............................74

3.3.a.4 General Restriction on Allegation Review Activities Prior to an ARB .....................74

3.3.a.5 Actions of Responsible Action Office Staff ............................................................75

3.3.a.6 Allegation Discussion/Meeting Precautions ...........................................................75

3.3.a.7 General Reference Questions for ARB Preparation ..............................................75

3.3.b OAC Actions ................................................................................................................76

3.3.b.1 OAC Activities .......................................................................................................76

3.3.b.2 ARB Scheduling ....................................................................................................76

3.3.b.3 Provision of Allegation-Related Information to Responsible Staff ..........................77

3.3.b.4 OAC Actions Regarding Concerns Outside NRC Jurisdiction ...............................77

3.3.b.5 OAC Actions Regarding Generic Concerns or Concerns Involving Technical 

Expertise of an NRC Office ...................................................................................77

3.3.b.6 OAC Actions Regarding Vague Concerns or Concerns Lacking in Detail..............77

3.3.b.7 Identification of Concerns .....................................................................................78

3.3.b.8 OAC as Primary Alleger Point of Contact ..............................................................78

3.3.c Allegation File Documentation Including Document Handling, Sensitivity, and Storage 79

3.3.c.1 Allegation Number ................................................................................................79

3.3.c.2 Allegation File .......................................................................................................79

3.3.c.3 Prohibition on Maintaining a Separate List Relating Allegation Numbers to 

Alleger Names ......................................................................................................80

3.3.c.4 Allegation File Cover Sheets .................................................................................80

3.3.c.5 Protection of Documents Removed from the Allegation File..................................80

3.3.c.6 Preliminary Notifications Referencing Allegation Information ................................81

3.3.c.7 Storage of Official Agency Allegation Files and Documents ..................................81

3.3.c.8 Allegation Information - SUNSI Handling Guidance ..............................................83

3.3.c.9 Other Allegation Document Handling Considerations............................................90

4.0 Protection of Alleger Identity ............................................................................................92

4.1 Alleger Identity Protection ................................................................................................92

4.1.a Informing an Alleger About the Allegation Program Identity Protection Policy ..............92

4.1.b Allegation Program Identity Protection Policy ...............................................................92

4.1.c Implementing the Allegation Program Identity Protection Policy ...................................92

4.2 Limitations on Alleger Identity Protection ..........................................................................94
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

v

4.2.a Circumstances that May Require NRC to Disclose an Alleger’s Identity.......................94

4.2.b Actions if Alleger Does Not Object to Identity Disclosure ..............................................95

4.2.c Alleger Identity Disclosure Regarding a Discrimination Concern ..................................95

4.2.d Potential for Alleger Identity Disclosure Regarding a Wrongdoing Investigation ...........95

4.2.e Obtaining Management Approval for Alleger Identity Release ......................................96

4.2.f “Widely Known” Alleger................................................................................................96

4.2.f.1 What is a Widely Known Alleger? .........................................................................96

4.2.f.2 FOIA Request Related to a Widely Known Alleger ................................................96

4.2.f.3 Consideration of Widely Known Alleger Status Regarding a

Discrimination Concern Involving the DOL Process ..............................................96

4.2.f.4 Publicly Available Information about Court Proceedings - "Practical Obscurity" ....97

4.2.g Notifying the Alleger about the Release of His/Her Identity ..........................................97

4.2.h Actions Following an Inadvertent Alleger Identity Release ...........................................97

4.2.i Potential Alleger Identity Disclosure Related to a Concern/Request Submitted 

Regarding 10 CFR 19.16(a) .........................................................................................98

4.3 Considering Public Discussion of Specific Allegation-Related Information ........................99

4.4 Advising an Alleger about Confidential Source Status .....................................................99

4.4.a Advising an Alleger about Confidential Source Status ..................................................99

4.4.b Alleger Request for Confidential Source Status ..........................................................100

4.4.c Alleger Refusal to Provide Information – Option for Subpoena ...................................100

4.5 Granting and Revoking Confidential Source Status .......................................................100

4.5.a General ...................................................................................................................100

4.5.a.1 Commission Policy Statement on Confidentiality ................................................100

4.5.a.2 Confidential Source Status Is Not Granted Routinely ..........................................101

4.5.b Granting Confidential Source Status ..........................................................................101

4.5.b.1 Determining Whether a Grant of Confidential Source Status is Warranted ..........101

4.5.b.2 Considering an Offer of Confidentiality to an Alleger Who Has Not Requested 

Confidential Source Status .................................................................................101

4.5.b.3 Information Provided to an Alleger Who Has Been Granted Confidential 

Source Status .....................................................................................................102

4.5.b.4 Authority to Grant Confidential Source Status .....................................................102

4.5.b.5 Documentation of Authority to Grant Confidential Source Status ........................102

4.5.b.6 Temporary Grant of Confidential Source Status ..................................................103

4.5.b.7 Requirement to Inform Senior Management when Confidential Source Status 

Has Been Granted ..............................................................................................103

4.5.b.8 Maintenance of Confidentiality Agreements and Related Documentation ...........103

4.5.b.9 Actions to Support the Protection of Confidential Source Status .........................103

4.5.b.10 Actions if Confidential Source Status Has Been Breached or Jeopardized .........104

4.5.b.11 OI Granting of Confidential Source Status ..........................................................104

4.5.c Revocation of Confidential Source Status ..................................................................105

4.5.c.1 Authority to Revoke Confidential Source Status ..................................................105

4.5.c.2 Circumstances Warranting Revocation of Confidential Source Status ................105

4.5.c.3 Contacting Alleger Prior to Revocation of Confidential Source Status .................105

4.5.d Withdrawal of Confidential Source Status ..................................................................105

4.5.e Official Disclosures .....................................................................................................105

4.5.e.1 Disclosure to the Licensee or Other Affected Organization ................................. 105

4.5.e.2 Other Disclosures ...............................................................................................106

5.0 Allegation Evaluation .....................................................................................................108

5.1 Allegation Review Board (ARB) .....................................................................................108

5.1.a Participants and Functions .........................................................................................108

5.1.a.1 ARB Quorum .....................................................................................................108
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

vi

5.1.a.2 Initial ARB Schedule ...........................................................................................108

5.1.a.3 OAC/Allegation Coordination Staff ARB Functions .............................................108

5.1.b ARB Proceedings .......................................................................................................109

5.1.b.1 Pre-ARB Preparation and Actions to Facilitate ARB Discussion .........................109

5.1.b.2 ARB Discussion and Proposed Actions ..............................................................109

5.1.b.3 Exclusion of OIG-Related Issues from ARB Discussion ......................................112

5.1.b.4 Reconvening the ARB .........................................................................................112

5.1.b.5 Taking Credit for Another NRC Meeting at Which a Decision is Made Regarding 

an Allegation as an ARB Meeting .......................................................................112

5.1.b.6 “E-Mail” or “Walk-around” or "Virtual" ARB Meeting ............................................113

5.1.b.7 Considering ARB Discussion of an Alleger’s Interview Transcript or of the 

Results of an OI Assist to Staff ...........................................................................113

5.1.b.8 Documenting ARB Decisions in AMS ..................................................................114

5.1.c Documentation of ARB Minutes/Decisions ................................................................. 114

5.1.c.1 Content of ARB Meeting Minutes ........................................................................114

5.1.c.2 Approval of ARB Meeting Minutes ......................................................................115

5.1.c.3 Distribution of ARB Meeting Minutes ...................................................................115

5.2 ARB Consideration of Discrimination Concerns and Chilling Effect/Chilled Work 

Environment Issues .......................................................................................................115

5.2.a ARB Discussions Involving Allegations of Discrimination ...........................................115

5.2.a.1 Prima Facie Determination and Early ADR Offer ................................................115

5.2.a.2 Exceptions to Offering Early ADR and Assignment of Tentative OI Investigation 

Priority ................................................................................................................117

5.2.a.3 Determination of Action Subsequent to Early ADR Offer .....................................118

5.2.a.4 Review of Alleger Transcript (if OI Investigation is Initiated) ................................118

5.2.a.5 Discrimination Concern Terminology ..................................................................118

5.2.a.6 Failure-to-Hire Discrimination Concerns..............................................................119

5.2.b NRC Response to Fears of Retaliation.......................................................................119

5.2.c NRC/DOL Interface and the DOL Review Process .....................................................120

5.2.c.1 NRC/DOL Memorandum of Understanding .........................................................120

5.2.c.2 The DOL Process ...............................................................................................120

5.2.c.3 NRC Allegation File Status Related to Discrimination Matters in the DOL 

Process..............................................................................................................125

5.2.c.4 Alleger’s Right to File with DOL ..........................................................................126

5.2.c.5 Technical Issues Related to a Discrimination Concern ........................................126

5.2.c.6 State Employees – Inability to File an ERA Section 211 Complaint with DOL .....126

5.2.d DOL Settlement Prior to OI Investigation Completion .................................................127

5.2.e Different Conclusions Reached by DOL and NRC .....................................................127

5.2.f NRC Contacts for DOL Information ............................................................................127

5.2.f.1 Requests by Individuals or by DOL .....................................................................127

5.2.f.2 Requests for Reports From OI ............................................................................128

5.2.f.3 Production or Disclosure in Response to Subpoenas or Demands of Courts ......128

5.2.f.4 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act............................................128

5.2.f.5 Amicus Curiae Briefs ..........................................................................................128

5.2.f.6 Correspondence ................................................................................................. 128

5.2.g Concerns about DOL Performance or the Validity of Information Provided to DOL ....129

5.2.h Early Alternative Dispute Resolution (Early ADR) ......................................................129

5.2.h.1 Implementation of Early ADR ..............................................................................129

5.2.h.2 Prerequisite to Offer of Early ADR – Prima Facie Showing ................................. 129

5.2.h.3 Early ADR Offer ..................................................................................................130

5.2.h.4 Lack of Alleger/Employer Response to Early ADR Offer .....................................131
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

vii

5.2.h.5 Prohibition of Early ADR Offer After OI Case Initiation ........................................132

5.2.h.6 Early ADR Mediation Process .............................................................................133

5.2.h.7 Review of Early ADR Settlement Agreement ......................................................134

5.2.h.8 Actions if Settlement is Not Reached ..................................................................134

5.2.h.9 Early ADR Mediation Contractor Responsibilities ................................................135

5.2.h.10 Employer Internal Dispute Resolution Processes ................................................135

5.2.h.11 Considering DOL/OSHA Settlement Agreements as Equivalent to Early ADR ....135

5.2.h.12 Confidentiality of Mediation Activities ..................................................................136

5.2.h.13 Non-Compliance or Slow Compliance with Terms of Settlement Agreement ......137

5.2.i Third-Party Allegations of Discrimination .....................................................................137

5.2.j Chilling Effect/Chilled Work Environment Allegations ..................................................138

5.2.j.1 Chilling Effect/Chilled Work Environment Concern Types ...................................138

5.2.j.2 ARB Proposed Actions in Response to Chilling Effect/Chilled Work 

Environment Concerns .......................................................................................138

5.2.j.3 Consideration of Chilling Effect/Chilled Work Environment Concerns Not 

Related to NRC-Regulated Activity .....................................................................143

5.2.j.4 Chilling Effect Comments Solicited by NRC during PI&R Inspections

and Supplemental Reactor Oversight Program (ROP) Inspections for

Degraded Cornerstones ......................................................................................144

5.2.j.5 Inspecting Chilling Effect/SCWE Concerns at a Vendor ......................................144

5.2.j.6 Chilling Effect Letters ..........................................................................................145

5.3 Acknowledgment Letter ................................................................................................. 153

5.3.a Acknowledgment Letter Description ...........................................................................154

5.3.b Responsibility for Acknowledgment Letter Issuance When an Allegation is 

Transferred ................................................................................................................154

5.3.c Verification of Letter Receipt ......................................................................................154

5.3.d Acknowledgment Letter Marking ................................................................................155

5.3.e Inclusion of Early ADR Offer and Related Information ................................................155

5.3.f Informing the Alleger About Possible Limitations on Feedback Regarding Security 

Concerns ...................................................................................................................155

5.3.g Acknowledgment (or Other) Letter Returned to Action Office .....................................155

5.4 Interfacing with the Alleger During Allegation Evaluation ...............................................156

5.4.a Advantages of Interaction with the Alleger During Allegation Evaluation ....................156

5.4.b Alleger Interview ........................................................................................................157

5.4.c Location of Alleger Interview ......................................................................................157

5.4.d Alleger Request to Actively Participate in NRC Evaluation or for Verification of NRC 

Completion of Requested Evaluation Efforts ..............................................................157

5.4.d.1 Alleger Request to Actively Participate in NRC Allegation Evaluation .................157

5.4.d.2 Alleger Requests for Specific NRC Allegation Evaluation Actions or

NRC Verification that Requested Actions Were Completed ................................158

5.5 Evaluation by NRC Technical Staff ................................................................................159

5.5.a Implementing Assigned Allegation Follow-up Actions .................................................159

5.5.b Documenting Allegation Concern Evaluation..............................................................159

5.5.c Considering Generic or Potential Wrongdoing Implications during Allegation 

Evaluation ..................................................................................................................159

5.6 Allegation Transfers, RFIs, and Referrals ......................................................................159

5.6.a Considering an Allegation Transfer, RFI, or Referral ..................................................159

5.6.b Informing an Alleger of an Allegation Transfer, RFI, or Referral ................................. 160

5.6.c Allegation Transfers and Allegation-Related TIAs or TARs ........................................160

5.6.c.1 Allegation Transfer ..............................................................................................160

5.6.c.2 Resolution of Differences Regarding Allegation Transfer ....................................161
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

viii

5.6.c.3 Allegation-Related TIAs and TARs......................................................................161

5.6.d Requests for Information from the Licensee ...............................................................161

5.6.d.1 Policy Regarding the Issuance of an RFI to the Licensee ...................................161

5.6.d.2 Conditions Inhibiting the Issuance of an RFI to the Licensee ..............................162

5.6.d.3 Requesting Information from the Licensee in Response to an Overriding Safety 

Issue ...................................................................................................................162

5.6.d.4 ARB Considerations Regarding an Allegation-Related RFI to the Licensee ........163

5.6.d.5 Informing the Alleger About an Allegation-Related RFI to the Licensee ..............164

5.6.d.6 RFI Letter to the Licensee ...................................................................................165

5.6.d.7 Licensee Questions about Allegation-Related RFIs and Requests for Extension 

of Response Time ...............................................................................................169

5.6.d.8 Staff Review of Licensee Response to an RFI ....................................................171

5.6.e Referral of Concerns About Agreement State Licensees ...........................................176

5.6.e.1 Requirement to Refer a Concern Related to an Agreement State

Licensee .............................................................................................................176

5.6.e.2 Determining Whether to Process a Concern Related to an

Agreement State Licensee as an Allegation ........................................................176

5.6.e.3 Concerns Involving an Agreement State Licensee That Are Under

Jurisdiction of Another Federal Agency ...............................................................176

5.6.e.4 Concerns Involving Both an NRC License and a State License ..........................176

5.6.f Referral of Industrial Safety Concerns to OSHA and/or the Licensee .........................177

5.6.f.1 Processing Industrial Safety Concerns ...............................................................177

5.6.f.2 Identity Protection Considerations Related to OSHA Referrals ...........................177

5.6.f.3 NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1007 ................................................................177

5.6.g Referral of Concerns to Government Agencies and Military Organizations ................178

5.6.h Referrals of Offsite Emergency Preparedness Matters Related to NRC Licensed 

Facilities to FEMA ......................................................................................................179

5.6.i Referrals to OIG .........................................................................................................179

5.6.j Referrals of Concerns About OIG ...............................................................................179

5.7 Evaluation of Wrongdoing Concerns .............................................................................180

5.7.a Providing an Allegation Concern to OI for Initiation of an Investigation .......................180

5.7.a.1 Informing OI of Matters Involving Potential Wrongdoing ......................................180

5.7.a.2 Handling Allegations Involving Both Wrongdoing and an Overriding

Safety Issue ........................................................................................................180

5.7.a.3 OI Investigation of Discrimination Concerns ........................................................180

5.7.a.4 Informing the Department of Justice of Substantiated Wrongdoing .....................180

5.7.a.5 Initiating, Prioritizing, and Terminating OI Investigations .....................................181

5.7.a.6 Resolution of Matters Returned by OI Without Investigation ...............................193

5.8 Periodic Status Letters to Allegers .................................................................................193

5.8.a Status Letter Requirement and Frequency ................................................................. 193

5.8.b Allegation Concerns Closed in a Status Letter ...........................................................193

5.8.c Guidance for Closing Concerns in a Status Letter ......................................................194

5.8.d Status Letter Marking ................................................................................................. 194

5.9 Allegation Closure .........................................................................................................194

5.9.a Staff Action ................................................................................................................194

5.9.b OAC Actions ..............................................................................................................194

5.9.c Documentation of Allegation Evaluation ..................................................................... 195

5.9.c.1 Closure Document Description ...........................................................................195

5.9.c.2 Closure Document Content .................................................................................195

5.9.c.3 Closure Document Enclosures/Attachments .......................................................196

5.9.c.4 Closure Document Conclusions Related to Concerns Involving a 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

ix

Licensee RFI ......................................................................................................196

5.9.c.5 Closure Letter Marking ........................................................................................196

5.9.d Determining Whether an Allegation Concern is Substantiated ...................................197

5.9.d.1 Applying the Allegation Definition to Determine Whether an

Allegation Concern is Substantiated ...................................................................197

5.9.d.2 Difference Between Allegation Closure Document Discussion and Determining 

Whether to Code an Allegation as Substantiated in AMS ....................................197

5.9.d.3 Use of the Term “Substantiated” or “Unsubstantiated” in Allegation Closure 

Documentation....................................................................................................198

5.9.d.4 Other Considerations in Determining Whether a Concern is

Substantiated ......................................................................................................198

5.9.d.5 Possibility of Alleger Disagreement with NRC Conclusion ..................................198

5.9.d.6 “Unsubstantiated” Discrimination Concerns ........................................................198

5.9.e Discussion of Enforcement/Assessment Process Outcomes in Allegation Concern 

Closure Documentation ..............................................................................................199

5.9.e.1 Closure Documentation Reference to Enforcement Outcome – Level

of Detail ..............................................................................................................199

5.9.e.2 Provision of Operating Reactor Enforcement Process Outcomes Not

Documented in Inspection Reports .....................................................................199

5.9.f Notification of Results of OI Investigations and Assists ..............................................200

5.9.f.1 Notification of OI Investigation Closure When No Enforcement Action Is 

Intended..............................................................................................................200

5.9.f.2 Notification of OI Investigation Closure When Enforcement Action Is Pending ....201

5.9.f.3 Release of OI Investigation Synopsis or Redacted Report Concerning 

Investigations of Discrimination to Parties in an Ongoing DOL Proceeding .........203

5.9.f.4 Closure of Issues in OI Assists to the Staff .........................................................204

5.9.g Specified Allegation Closure Guidelines .....................................................................204

5.9.g.1 Allegation Closure Documentation for a Concern Involving an Allegation-Related 

RFI to the Licensee .............................................................................................205

5.9.g.2 Closure of a Discrimination Concern Resolved Through Early ADR ....................205

5.9.g.3 Closure of an Agreement State Concern When the Alleger Has Requested 

that NRC Protect His/Her Identity .......................................................................207

5.9.g.4 Closure of Security-Related Concerns ................................................................207

5.9.g.5 Content of Closure Letter Information to Alleger Indicating that Radiation 

Exposure Has Caused a Medical Condition ........................................................210

5.9.g.6 Items Returned to the Staff Without a Full Investigation by OI ............................210

5.9.g.7 Closure of Chilling Effect Concerns .....................................................................211

5.9.g.8 Evaluation/Closure of Remaining Open Allegation Concerns After a ..................213

Reactor Facility Has Ceased Power Operation ...................................................213

5.10Alleger Response After Closure (RAC) ...........................................................................215

5.10.a Alleger Feedback After Allegation Closure ................................................................215

5.10.b AMS Documentation of Response After Closure and NRC Follow-Up ......................215

5.10.c Multiple Responses After Closure Regarding the Same Allegation/Concern .............215

6.0 Freedom of Information Act Requests ...........................................................................217

6.1 Allegation-Related FOIA Requests ................................................................................217

6.2 “Fingerprinting” Information ............................................................................................217

6.3 General Guidance for Responding to Allegation-Related FOIA Requests ......................217

6.4 OE Allegation-Related FOIA Response Reviews ...........................................................217

6.5 FOIA Exemptions Related to Withholding Alleger-Identifying Information ......................217

6.6 Withholding Release of an Alleger’s Name in Response to a FOIA Related to an 

Overriding Safety Issue .................................................................................................218
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

x

6.7 FOIA Exemption 7(A) ....................................................................................................218

6.8 Document Retention Requirements Applying to FOIA Exemption 7(A) ..........................219

6.9 Alleger FOIA Request for Documents from Closed Allegations Submitted by 

the Alleger.....................................................................................................................219

6.10 Third Party FOIA Request ...........................................................................................220

6.11 Third Party FOIA Request for Allegations Submitted by a Specific Individual ..............220

6.12 Use of AMS to Create Reports Responsive to FOIA Requests ....................................220

6.13 FOIA Response Reference Table ................................................................................221

7.0 Allegation Management System (AMS) .........................................................................222

7.1 AMS Description ............................................................................................................222

7.2 Access to AMS Database ..............................................................................................222

7.3 AMS Data Entry and Usage Guidance ..........................................................................222

7.3.a Allegation Number......................................................................................................222

7.3.b Allegation Concern Entry Threshold ...........................................................................222

7.3.c Exclusion of Sensitive Information ..............................................................................223

7.3.d Exclusion of Investigative Evidence ...........................................................................223

7.3.e Cross-Referencing .....................................................................................................223

7.3.f Non-Allegations in AMS .............................................................................................223

7.3.g OIG-Related Information ............................................................................................223

7.3.h Exclusion of Law Enforcement Information ................................................................224

7.3.i Consistency of Concern Description and Basis for Closure Information .....................224

7.3.j Timeliness of AMS Data Entry ...................................................................................224

7.3.k Allegations Affecting Multiple Offices .........................................................................224

7.3.l Entry of OI Case Number ...........................................................................................224

7.3.m Entry of EA or IA Number ...........................................................................................224

7.3.n Status of Allegations with Open DOL Cases ..............................................................224

7.3.o AMS Entries Related to Early ADR ............................................................................225

7.3.p ERA Section 211 Information Entry ............................................................................226

7.3.q Third Party Discrimination Concerns ..........................................................................226

7.3.r Inadequate Licensee RFI Response ..........................................................................226

7.3.s Response After Closure .............................................................................................226

7.3.t. Identifying Means of Correspondence ........................................................................226

7.3.u Contractor, Subcontractor, or Vendor Involved in Discrimination Concern .................227

7.3.v. Agreement State Concerns ........................................................................................227

7.3.w Awareness of Auto-Fill Function when Adding New Concern .....................................227

7.3.x Prima Facie Information .............................................................................................227

7.4 AMS Database Maintenance, Monitoring, and Security .................................................227

7.4.a Service Level Agreement Between OE and OIS ........................................................227

7.4.b System Owner Responsibilities Related to AMS Database Oversight ........................228

7.4.b.1 System Access Level Monitoring ........................................................................228

7.4.b.2 System Problems/Warnings ................................................................................228

7.4.b.3 OIS Requests Related to System Administration, Oversight, Testing,

and Security Assessment ...................................................................................229

8.0 Allegation Program Oversight ........................................................................................230

8.1 Biennial Allegation Program Assessments ....................................................................230

8.1.a Assessment Requirement ..........................................................................................230

8.1.b Assessment Team .....................................................................................................230

8.1.c Areas Reviewed During the Allegation Program Assessment ....................................230

8.1.c.1 Capture of and Response to Alleger Concerns ...................................................231

8.1.c.2 Alleger Identity Protection ...................................................................................231

8.1.c.3 Process Timeliness Goals ..................................................................................231
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

xi

8.1.c.4 ARB Quality ........................................................................................................232

8.1.c.5 Response After Closure ......................................................................................232

8.1.c.6 Closure Timeliness Expectations Related to Allegation Files Not

Under the Metrics ...............................................................................................233

8.1.d Assessment Checklist ................................................................................................233

8.1.e Allegation Program Assessment Categorization .........................................................234

8.1.f Allegation Program Performance Goals .....................................................................234

8.1.g Definition of an Allegation Program Assessment Finding of Significance ...................235

8.1.h Assessment Report ....................................................................................................236

8.2 Allegation Program Self-Assessments ...........................................................................237

8.2.a Self-Assessment Activities .........................................................................................237

8.2.b Self-Assessment Guidelines ......................................................................................237

9.0 Glossary (8.8 Handbook, Section VI) .............................................................................239

List of Abbreviations/Acronyms ..............................................................................................247

Appendix A References, NRC Policy Documents, and Procedures Related to the 

Allegation Process ............................................................................................250

Appendix B Allegation Guidance Memoranda .....................................................................256

Appendix C Allegation Program Contact Information ...........................................................258

Exhibit 1 Information to be Obtained/Provided During the Initial Contact with the Alleger ..264

Exhibit 1A Sample Allegation Intake Form ...........................................................................266

Exhibit 2 Ability of Agreement States to Protect Alleger Identity from Disclosure ...............269

Exhibit 3 NRC Form 762 – Sensitive Allegation Material Cover Sheet ...............................270

Exhibit 4 NRC Form 761 – Confidential Allegation Material Cover Sheet ..........................271

Exhibit 5 Confidentiality Agreement ...................................................................................272

Exhibit 6 Sample Allegation Review Board Disposition Record .........................................273

Exhibit 7 Memorandum of Understanding Between NRC and the Department of 

Labor (DOL)........................................................................................................275

Exhibit 8 Allegation Process Flow Chart ................................................................278

Exhibit 9 29 CFR Part 24 - U.S. Department of Labor Procedures for Handling 

Discrimination Complaints Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes ............279

Exhibit 11 Sample Agreement to Mediate (Early ADR) ........................................................285

Exhibit 12 Sample Allegation Acknowledgment Letter .........................................................287

Exhibit 13 Allegation Review Board Worksheet ...................................................................297

Exhibit 14 Sample Allegation Request For Information (RFI) Letter To The Licensee ..........300

Exhibit 15 Checklist for NRC Staff Review of Licensee Response to an Allegation Request 

for Information .....................................................................................................304

Exhibit 16 OI Investigation Priority .......................................................................................307

Exhibit 17 Sample Allegation Status Letter ..........................................................................308

Exhibit 18 Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Other Than Security Concerns) ...............312

Exhibit 19 Sample Closure Memorandum to File (For Anonymous Allegations, NRC StaffIdentified or Licensee-Identified Wrongdoing, Or When An Alleger Specifically 

Requests No Correspondence From NRC) .........................................................319

Exhibit 20 Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Security Related concerns)......................321

Exhibit 21 Sample Letters From OE ADR Program Manager Informing Alleger and Licensee 

That NRC Will Not Investigate a Discrimination Concern Following a Negotiated 

Settlement (NRC Sponsored Early ADR or Other) ..............................................325

Exhibit 22 Guidance for Correspondence to Allegers with Security-Related Concerns ........327

Exhibit 23 FOIA Processing Guidance for Investigation and Allegation-Related Material ....328

Exhibit 24 Allegation Program Assessment Checklist ..........................................................331

Exhibit 25 RFI Licensee Callback – Conversation Record ...................................................339

Exhibit 26 Supporting Information Related to a Failure-to-Hire Discrimination Concern .......340
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

1

1.0 The NRC Allegation Program 

1.1 Program Description 

The Agency Allegation Advisor (AAA) in the Office of Enforcement (OE) advises the 

Commission on allegation program-related policy matters and oversees the day-to-day activities 

of the agency’s allegation program, which administers the evaluation of safety concerns 

received by the NRC from sources outside the agency. Members of the public or workers 

performing activities associated with NRC-regulated matters may report safety concerns to the 

NRC through various means (e.g., speaking with NRC staff, calling the NRC Safety Hotline, 

submitting a concern in writing, submitting a concern via the NRC public web site). Each 

regional office and certain headquarters offices retain an Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) 

and many retain an allegation coordination staff that works with the OAC to manage allegation 

processing within that office. 

This manual describes how allegations are received, evaluated, and closed by the NRC. As a 

companion to Management Directive (MD) 8.8, “Management of Allegations,” this manual is 

intended to provide assistance to NRC staff in implementing the allegation program in practice. 

Because the practices used to implement the allegation program and monitor allegation status 

change periodically, the Allegation Manual will function as a living document on the NRC 

internal web site so that users will have access to the latest guidance and reference information. 

[Note: The Allegation Manual repeats many sections of MD 8.8 verbatim. These sections are 

highlighted in italics in the Allegation Manual, with the specific MD 8.8 reference provided.] 

There is no threshold for the acceptance of a concern that meets the definition of an “allegation” 

provided in the Manual Glossary (Manual Section 9.0). The type and amount of effort required 

to evaluate and close an allegation concern is made by the Allegation Review Board (ARB) on a 

case-by-case basis. Allegation evaluation is accomplished by technical review, inspection, 

evaluation of information requested from the affected licensee1 or another NRC regional or 

headquarters office, obtaining the results of investigations or evaluations conducted by the NRC 

Office of Investigations (OI), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Labor (DOL), a 

State agency, or another Federal agency, or by any combination of these actions. Alleger 

identity protection is an important aspect of the allegation program. All reasonable efforts are 

taken not to disclose an alleger’s identity outside the NRC (unless NRC is compelled to do so 

for any of the reasons described in Manual Section 4.2.a), and an alleger’s identity is only 

revealed within the agency on a need-to-know basis. The staff is responsible for controlling 

documents that could reveal an alleger's identity, using applicable allegation documentation 

control guidance. (8.8 Handbook, Sections I.B and I.C) 

Recognizing that licensees have the first responsibility for safety and are in the best position to 

respond promptly to a safety matter, the NRC encourages workers to first raise safety concerns 

with the licensee. For this to happen, workers must feel free to raise potential safety issues 

directly to management and/or by way of established corrective action processes. The NRC 

recognizes that if workers are subjected to harassment, intimidation, retaliation, or 

1

For allegation program purposes, the term “licensee” refers to an organization/individual, or a contractor, 

subcontractor, or vendor to an organization/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.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

2

discrimination by management for reporting safety concerns, a “chilled” work environment may 

be created that would inhibit workers from reporting additional safety concerns. If this happens, 

a valuable source of information for maintaining and improving safety is lost. In its simplest 

sense, the fact that a worker who performs tasks associated with NRC-regulated activities 

chooses to submit an allegation to the NRC provides indication that, for some reason, the 

worker did not want to raise the concern internally, or that the worker submitted the concern 

internally to management or by way of an established corrective action process, but was not 

satisfied with and/or informed of the actions in response. For this reason, the trending of 

allegation information provides input to NRC’s efforts to monitor whether licensees promote a 

work environment conducive to employees raising safety concerns, i.e., a safety conscious work 

environment (SCWE). 

1.2 Policy and Objectives 

Management Directive 8.8, Sections I.A and I.B discuss the NRC’s policy and objectives related 

to the implementation to the NRC Allegation Program. 

1.3 History of the NRC Allegation Program 

NRC (and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)) has received concerns from 

external stakeholders about activities associated with agency-regulated licensees and facilities 

since the establishment of the AEC in the 1940s. Until the 1980s, such concerns not handled 

by way of a formal NRC process (e.g., hearing, petition) were received, evaluated, and 

responded to individually by the regional or headquarters office with responsibility for oversight 

of the affected facility or licensed activity. Such concerns received prior to late-1982 were not 

handled in accordance with a centralized procedure or captured in a common database. Since 

December 1982, the NRC has followed guidance approved by the Executive Director for 

Operations (EDO) for the handling of allegations, including the establishment of the Allegation 

Management System (AMS), a common agency database for recording allegation follow up 

activities. 

In June 1987, existing agency guidance related to allegation management, alleger identity 

protection, and staff interface with the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) was gathered and 

incorporated into an agency-wide guidance document, NRC Manual Chapter 0517, 

"Management of Allegations." A revision to Manual Chapter 0517 was issued on April 3, 1990. 

In July 1993, the EDO established a review team to reassess the NRC's program for protecting 

allegers against retaliation. The review team was chartered to consider whether the 

Commission had taken sufficient steps within its authority to create an environment within the 

regulated community in which employees felt free to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. 

On January 7, 1994, NUREG-1499, "Report of the Review Team for Reassessment of the 

NRC's Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation," was issued, documenting the 

recommendations of the review team. NUREG-1499 offered 47 specific recommendations to 

improve NRC’s program for protecting allegers against retaliation. The recommendations 

addressed strengthening the NRC allegation program, modifying NRC enforcement policy for 

more effective deterrents against violations, issuing Commission policy statements to 

encourage licensee action, prioritizing and supporting OI investigations to minimize the impact 

of retaliation, and increasing NRC investigation of discrimination matters and interaction with the 

DOL Whistleblower Protection Program (hereafter referred to as the “DOL process”) which 

performs independent reviews of discrimination claims submitted under Section 211 of the 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA) for the purpose of personal remedy. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

3

NRC staff analyzed the NUREG-1499 recommendations and on March 29, 1994, the EDO 

provided the Commission with the results of the staff’s review along with a plan for implementing 

the recommendations in SECY-94-089, "Response to the Report of the Review Team for 

Reassessment of the NRC's Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation." Staff 

implementation of most of the review team recommendations was accomplished via the 

development or modification of agency policy, procedures and directives related to the 

allegation program and the evaluation of discrimination concerns (namely, the development and 

revision of MD 8.8, “Management of Allegations,” the development and revision of a 

Commission policy statement on the "Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise 

Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation," and revisions to the NRC Enforcement Policy and 

Enforcement Manual). The most notable changes to the allegation program resulting from the 

implementation of the NUREG-1499 recommendations were: 

- establishing the Agency Allegation Advisor position 

- developing an agency policy statement on SCWE, i.e., “Freedom of Employees in the

Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation” [May 14, 1996; 61 FR 

24336]

- developing inspection guidance related to SCWE (Problem Identification & Resolution 

inspection guidance) 

- including allegation responsiveness as a measure of NRC staff performance 

- conducting annual audits (now biennial assessments) of the implementation of the allegation 

program in the regional and certain headquarters offices 

- requiring periodic training for individuals having substantial involvement in the receipt and/or 

evaluation of allegations 

- developing an allegation program brochure (NUREG/BR-0240) to provide external 

stakeholders with a plain language, general description of the NRC allegation program 

- developing allegation program timeliness milestones for evaluating allegations and providing 

responses to allegers 

- developing an alleger survey to obtain feedback about NRC’s implementation of the 

allegation program 

- clarifying the allegation program criteria for formally requesting information from the licensee 

as part of allegation evaluation 

- improving the AMS database to enable NRC staff and management to better monitor 

allegation status and trends 

- establishing a toll free telephone number for the Office Allegation Coordinators 

- developing specific criteria for determining the priority of a wrongdoing or discrimination 

investigation 

- clarifying possible NRC actions in response to a credible threat of retaliation 

- improving NRC’s interface with DOL 

- considering enforcement discretion in some discrimination cases depending on licensee 

response 

- considering providing raw data to the public related to the number of allegations received by 

NRC 

NRC staff response to NUREG-1499 offered that all but 4 of the 47 recommendations should be 

adopted, and the Commission agreed with the staff’s suggestions. The four NUREG-1499 

recommendations that were not adopted involved developing an NRC survey instrument to 

assess the licensee’s environment for raising concerns, requesting that licensees place 

employees claiming discrimination for raising safety concerns in a "holding period" pending an 

initial ruling by DOL, and two recommendations involving the determination of civil penalty 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

4

amounts for substantiated discrimination concerns. 

On May 1, 1996, the initial version of NRC MD 8.8 was issued, incorporating the guidance of 

and superseding NRC Manual Chapter 0517 as the agency’s primary allegation program 

guidance document, and incorporating many of the NUREG-1499 recommendations. MD 8.8 is 

periodically revised to incorporate direction in Allegation Guidance Memoranda (AGM) issued 

between revisions of the MD and other pertinent allegation program-related policy information. 

On December 12, 1995, the EDO established another review team, the Millstone Independent 

Review Group (MIRG), to conduct an independent evaluation of the history of the handling of 

employee concerns and allegations related to activities at Millstone Station. The MIRG 

conducted a retrospective review of the NRC's handling of Millstone allegations received 

between 1985 and 1995. All of the allegations chosen for review by the MIRG were received by 

the NRC prior to the implementation of actions to address the NUREG-1499 recommendations 

and therefore were not reflective of the improvements that ultimately resulted from the 

implementation of those recommendations. On September 16, 1996, the MIRG issued the 

"Report of Millstone Independent Review Group Regarding Millstone Station and NRC Handling 

of Employee Concerns and Allegations." The MIRG forwarded its results and eight 

recommendations for improvements in the NRC's handling of allegations to the Commission by 

memorandum dated October 31, 1996. The MIRG recommendations are summarized in the 

following: 

- Change agency attitude that allegations are a necessary burden; enhance sensitivity to the 

allegation program as a valuable tool for accomplishing the NRC's mission 

- Avoid under-reaction to claims of discrimination 

- Develop expert resources to help establish and monitor effective performance indicators for 

measuring employee trust and confidence in licensee management's ability to resolve 

employee concerns without fear of discrimination 

- Recognize the potential chilling effect created by NRC enforcement that is publicly perceived 

as being soft on discrimination 

- Recognize the potential chilling effect of inadequate licensee correction of discrimination 

problems, especially when a licensee has minimized or denied discrimination findings 

- Appreciate alleger unfamiliarity with NRC processes, and provide more informative 

responses to help allegers put their concerns into better perspective 

- Expedite completion of AAA initiatives and NUREG-1499 recommendations to improve the 

allegation program 

- Reevaluate participation of both licensee and alleger attorneys during NRC discrimination 

investigations 

Staff response to the MIRG recommendations was multi-phased, with pertinent issues being 

addressed through: 

- staff training, including training conducted by the AAA 

- presentations at OAC counterpart meetings and at counterpart meetings and seminars for 

other NRC staff, 

- discussions at NRC Senior Management Meetings 

- establishing firmer schedules for interviewing an individual who alleges wrongdoing, including 

discrimination 

- modifying NRC inspection guidance for review of licensee employee concerns programs 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

5

- opening agency dialog with regard to possible NRC approaches for gaining insight into the 

licensee's work environment and proposing that the Commission seek public comment on 

how best to assure that licensees establish and maintain a SCWE 

- ensuring that cover letters forwarding enforcement actions related to discrimination concerns 

are appropriately worded based on the facts pertaining to each case 

- revising staff guidance on the timeliness of follow-up of corrective actions for violations 

involving discrimination cases 

- considering establishing agency responsibility for programmatic oversight of follow-up actions 

related to discrimination cases under a single organization 

- enhancing staff guidance for developing the basis for closure of an allegation 

- expediting completion of the NUREG-1499 recommendations 

In March 1997, in response to a congressional request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) 

issued a report entitled “Nuclear Employee Safety Concerns - Allegation System Offers Better 

Protection, But Important Issues Remain.” Specifically, Congress had expressed concern that 

the employee protection rules, as implemented by NRC and DOL, may not adequately protect 

nuclear workers who raise safety issues. Congress asked GAO to describe how workers are 

protected from discrimination by federal laws and determine the status of recommendations 

made in internal NRC and DOL reviews of the programs that evaluate the concerns and 

implement the employee protection rules. From an NRC perspective, the GAO review focused 

primarily on the handling of discrimination allegations, and ongoing activities to improve the 

process (primarily the status of NRC’s implementation of the NUREG-1499 recommendations). 

In its report, GAO acknowledged the progress of NRC’s ongoing efforts to improve the 

allegation, investigation, and enforcement processes related to discrimination allegations and 

offered the following recommendations: 

- improve the timeliness of DOL’s processing of discrimination complaints

- complete implementation of the NUREG 1499-recommendations 

- ensure that the NRC’s AMS database includes information on the status of DOL 

discrimination cases 

- improve NRC’s knowledge of the work environment at nuclear power plants (by tracking and 

monitoring discrimination allegations and settlements, using an alleger survey to obtain 

feedback, and performing systematic follow-up of chilling effect letters (CEL)) (CELs are 

described in Manual Section 5.2.j.6)) 

In response to GAO’s report recommendation regarding DOL process timeliness, considerable 

improvement was achieved as a result of two changes to the DOL evaluation process. First, the 

responsibility for DOL’s initial investigation of ERA Section 211 discrimination concerns was 

transferred from the DOL Wage and Hour Division to the DOL Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA). Secondly, DOL established an Administrative Review Board for the 

review of appeals to decisions made by DOL Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), as opposed to 

requiring that this review be performed by the Secretary of Labor. Regarding the GAO report 

recommendations related to NRC, changes were accomplished through the completion of 

actions in response to the NUREG-1499 and MIRG recommendations. 

On February 4, 1999, the first revision of MD 8.8 was issued, incorporating interim program 

guidance implemented by AGMs issued since 1996 (specifically, AGM 96-02 related to assuring 

the technical adequacy of the basis for closing an allegation, AGMs 98-01 and 98-01, Revision 

1, related to informing allegers and licensees of the completion of OI investigations, and AGM 

98-02 which revised the criteria for investigating allegations of discrimination). This MD 8.8 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

6

revision also implemented additional changes in response to the NUREG-1499 and MIRG 

recommendations. 

On April 14, 2000, the EDO chartered the Discrimination Task Group (DTG), to evaluate issues 

associated with matters covered by the NRC’s employee protection standards, including SCWE. 

Specifically, the DTG was tasked to: (1) evaluate NRC handling of matters covered by its 

employee protection regulations; (2) propose recommendations for improving the process for 

handling such matters; (3) ensure that the application of the enforcement process coincides with 

an environment where workers are free to raise concerns in accordance with NRC employee 

protection regulations; and (4) coordinate with internal and external stakeholders in developing 

recommendations for changes to the process. An NRC Senior Management Review Team 

(SMRT) was established to review the final recommendations of the DTG and provide additional 

perspectives. 

In April 2001, the DTG issued its draft report describing the review process and presenting 

preliminary recommendations. Based on the comments received on the draft report, the DTG 

expanded the scope of the final report. In addition to presenting recommendations to improve 

the then current process for handling discrimination matters, the final DTG report, issued in April 

2002, presented a series of basic policy questions for consideration in determining the NRC’s 

approach to discrimination matters. Substantive comments/recommendations from the DTG 

final report are noted below: 

- NRC should continue with its program of receiving allegations, performing investigations 

when appropriate, and administering enforcement sanctions to provide an incentive for 

licensees to maintain a SCWE;

- a higher threshold for initiating OI discrimination investigations should be considered, 

beyond the fact that a whistleblower must articulate a prima facie showing that an act of 

discrimination may have occurred; 

- the Enforcement Policy supplements should be revised to include more factors for 

consideration of discrimination matters than the individual’s position in the organization; 

- to improve the timeliness and consistency of NRC assessment of discrimination matters, 

enforcement related to discrimination cases should be centralized under OE; 

- the deferral of discrimination cases to DOL should be eliminated; 

- the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) with regard to resolving complaints of 

discrimination should be evaluated further by NRC; 

- rulemaking should be initiated to authorize the NRC to issue civil penalties to contractors 

working for NRC licensees; 

- NRC should consider financial assistance to whistleblowers and representatives to attend 

an enforcement conference; and

- NRC enforcement policy should be revised to encourage licensees provide training to 

managers on federal employee protection regulations. 

The final DTG recommendations were provided to the Commission in September 2002 in 

SECY-02-0166. Many, but not all, of the DTG’s recommendations were implemented (e.g., the 

NRC has not raised the threshold for OI initiation of a discrimination investigation). The most 

notable changes to the NRC allegation program implemented as a result of the DTG 

recommendations were the elimination of the option to defer NRC investigation of a 

discrimination matter while the matter is in the DOL review process, the incorporation of Early 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (Early ADR) as an option for handling discrimination concerns (in 

October 2004), and the issuance of Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2005-18, "Guidance for 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

7

Establishing and Maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment," dated August 25, 2005, 

which provided licensees with NRC perspectives on establishing and maintaining a SCWE. 

On September 8, 2003, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) 

which directed the staff to develop a pilot program, as described in SECY-03-0115, to evaluate 

the use of ADR in handling allegations of discrimination. In SECY-04-0044, dated March 12, 

2004, the staff recommended the implementation of a pilot program involving the use of Early 

ADR for alleged discrimination concerns prior to an NRC investigation. Briefly, in instances 

when an alleger has articulated a prima facie showing of potential discrimination for engaging in 

protected activity, the alleger is offered an opportunity to use Early ADR, a form of mediation, as 

a means of obtaining resolution of his/her discrimination concern without OI investigation or 

NRC enforcement action. The use of Early ADR has been successful in effecting the prompt 

resolution of a number of cases of alleged discrimination and has since become a permanent 

part of the NRC allegation program. 

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, restrictions were placed on the 

dissemination of sensitive security-related information outside NRC in an effort to preclude the 

release of information useful to potential adversaries. These controls were also applied to 

information provided to allegers raising security-related concerns to the NRC. The restrictions 

made it difficult for NRC to assure allegers that their concerns were addressed, and a number of 

allegers, dissatisfied with the limited NRC response, pursued their concerns publicly in 2005 

and 2006. The staff did not consider public response to be the most advisable primary means 

of addressing security-related allegation concerns, and in SECY-07-0032, dated February 12, 

2007, proposed new guidance for responding to individual allegers who raise security-related 

concerns in an effort to be as responsive to an alleger as is possible, while continuing to protect 

any information that could be used by an adversary to exploit a potential security vulnerability. 

The Commission approved the allegation program changes proposed by SECY-07-0032 which 

were implemented by AGM 2007-01, issued in May 2007. 

In the 2008-2010 time frame, allegation program enhancements were implemented in response 

to lessons learned related to the handling of allegations in 2007 regarding inattentive security 

officers at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (Peach Bottom). Lessons learned reviews 

included an assessment by the AAA, a Region I review team analysis, and a Senior Executive 

Review Panel (SERP) evaluation of the events related to the Peach Bottom allegations. The 

Commission approved recommendations for enhancing the allegation program resulting from 

these reviews, and directed the staff to discuss pending changes with internal and external 

stakeholders. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) also conducted an Event Inquiry and 

issued a report (OIG Event Inquiry OIG-07-65 dated August 22, 2008) identifying findings in four 

areas. A reconvened SERP determined that actions identified in the SERP report of March 5, 

2008 (COMSECY-08-0009), and approved by the Commission, addressed the four areas of 

findings in the OIG report. The SERP also recommended that certain additional actions be 

taken by the staff to clarify current practices in the policy documents guiding the staff’s 

implementation of the allegation program. New or enhanced guidance for NRC staff 

responsible for handling allegations was provided in AGM 2008-001, issued December 29, 

2008, and AGM 2008-001, Revision 1, issued February 2, 2010, in the following program areas: 

Allegation Terminology; Contacting Allegers; Licensee-Initiated Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Processes; Allegation Requests for Information; NRC Assessment of Licensee Responses to 

Requests for Information; Resident and Non-Resident Inspector Knowledge of Allegation 

Activity; Allegation Closure Documentation Involving a Licensee Response to a Request for 

Information; Public Discussion of Specific Allegation-Related Information; and Alleger 

Responses after Closure. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

8

In November 2010, Revision 2 to MD 8.8 was issued. Specifically, changes made as part of this 

MD 8.8 revision addressed Commission direction in the SRM for: 

 SECY-02-0166 regarding the handling of discrimination issues;

 SECY-04-0020 regarding the sensitivity of security information;

 SECY-04-0044 regarding the use of Early ADR with regard to allegations of discrimination;

 SECY-02-0163 regarding staff responsiveness to alleger responses after allegation closure;

 SECY 06-0122 regarding enhancing the Reactor Oversight Process to more fully address

safety culture;

 SECY-07-0032 regarding correspondence with allegers on security-related concerns;

 SECY-04-0191 related to RIS-05-026, which discusses Control of Sensitive Unclassified

Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) Related to Nuclear Power Reactors;

 SECY-05-101 related to RIS-05-031, which discusses Control of Security-Related SUNSI

Handled by Individuals, Firms, and Entities Subject to NRC Regulation of the Use of Source,

Byproduct, and Special Nuclear Material; and

 COMSECY-08-009, which provided the recommendations of the Senior Executive Review

Panel (SERP) regarding lessons learned from the agency’s response to allegations of

inattentive security officers at Peach Bottom in 2007.

Also incorporated were changes prescribed in AGMs issued since the issuance of MD 8.8, 

Revision 1 in February 1999, most of which directed the implementation of recommended staff 

actions pursuant to the SECY documents noted in this paragraph (specifically, AGMs 2000-001, 

2003-001, 2004-002, 2004-003, 2004-003 (Revision 1), 2005-001, 2007-001, 2008-001, and 

2008-001(Revision 1)). Also, to better focus MD 8.8 as a policy document, much of the specific 

detail related to allegation program implementation and practice formerly specified in the 

Handbook of MD 8.8 was removed and transferred to this Allegation Manual, which is available 

on the OE home page on the NRC internal web site. 

Guidance from AGMs issued after the November 2010 revision of MD 8.8 (AGM 2011-001, 

"Late-Filed Allegations," dated November 20, 2011, and AGM 2012-001, "NRC Chilling Effect 

Letters," dated March 9, 2012) has also been incorporated into the Allegation Manual (see 

Appendix B for a listing of AGMs).

1.4 Applicability 

The guidance in this Manual applies to all NRC employees except employees of the NRC Office 

of the Inspector General (OIG). OIG has internal procedures in place to ensure that allegations 

received by OIG are transferred to the appropriate action office (see “Action Office” definition in 

the Glossary, Manual Section 9.0) for processing. Matters concerning NRC staff or contractor 

misconduct under OIG purview and are not processed as allegations in accordance with MD 8.8 

and this Manual. Consistent with Manual Section 5.6.i, 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 Management Directive 7.4, “Reporting Suspected Wrongdoing and 

Processing OIG Referrals.“ (8.8, Section IV)

1.5 Training 

Since any NRC employee may receive an allegation and since NRC employees must be able to 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

9

recognize an allegation, all employees shall receive initial training with regard to the 

implementation of the allegation process. The initial training should normally be provided to a 

new employee within 30 days of his/her starting date. After completing initial training, all regional 

and headquarters office staff who perform work involving NRC-regulated activity and/or who 

have the opportunity to periodically interface with NRC licensee personnel or external 

stakeholders should receive allegation refresher training at least annually. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.R)

In addition to providing information with regard to established and/or new agency policy and 

guidance related to the implementation of the NRC allegation program, other skills required to 

support effective allegation processing should be emphasized during periodic training such as: 

listening and communication skills; avoiding prejudgment (i.e., focusing on the safety aspects of 

an alleger’s concerns and not on perceived motives or emotional issues that may accompany 

the concerns); inspection techniques to mask the fact that an issue relates to an allegation; 

ways to independently verify information provided by licensees in response to allegation 

concerns for which information has been requested from the licensee; effective ways to protect 

alleger identity, using appropriate document control techniques and security storage containers; 

processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Privacy Act (PA) requests that relate to 

allegation matters; and how to deal with alleger requests for confidential source status. 

1.6 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 (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.S). AGMs are drafted by the AAA and circulated to appropriate office(s) 

for review and concurrence. AGMs that provide guidance on the implementation of existing 

allegation program policy, but do not involve a policy change, are approved by the OE Director. 

AGMs that involve changes in allegation program policy are approved by the EDO. All AGMs 

created between formal revisions to MD 8.8 will be incorporated into the subsequent revision of 

MD 8.8. A listing of AGMs is included in Manual Appendix B. 

1.7 NRC Public Website Information Related to the NRC Allegation Program 

Information regarding NRC’s Allegation Program is available on NRC’s public website. The 

home page of the NRC public website includes a link entitled “Report a Safety Concern” 

(http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/safety-concern.html) that directs the 

requestor to a web page with several additional links to information related to the allegation 

program. In addition to defining an allegation, providing responses to Frequently Asked 

Questions (FAQ) about the allegation program, and providing guidance related to NRC SCWE 

policy, there are links to NRC Allegation Program Annual Trend Reports and statistics related to 

allegations received by the NRC. 

The NRC Allegation Program Annual Trend Reports provide, national, regional, and site-specific 

trend analysis related to allegations received by the NRC in the previous calendar year. Recent 

significant staff activities involving the allegation program and related policies are also 

discussed in the report. 

Allegation statistics are included on the NRC public website with regard to the following: 

- Allegations Received from All Sources External to the NRC 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

10

- Allegations Received from Onsite Sources 

- Discrimination Allegations Received 

- Open Allegations 

- Substantiated Allegations 

- Substantiated Allegations with Regulatory Response 

The statistics reflect allegations for the current calendar year and the 4 previous calendar years 

for operating power reactors, non-operating power reactors (power reactor license applicants or 

permanently shutdown power reactors), and fuel cycle facilities. Because of the smaller work 

force sizes associated with the large majority of materials licensees other than fuel facilities, the 

potential for identification of an alleger would be increased if such information was publicly 

available. For this reason, allegation statistics about materials licensees other than fuel cycle 

facilities are not provided publicly on the NRC website or in the NRC Annual Allegation Trend 

Report. 

The allegation statistics on the NRC public website also do not include potential wrongdoing 

matters identified by NRC staff or identified to the NRC by licensee personnel acting in their 

official capacities. These items are entered into the NRC allegation program so that the 

responsible NRC regional or headquarters office may track investigation activity related to the 

potential wrongdoing matter via the AMS database. These items are not reflected in the 

statistics posted on the NRC public website because they are not representative of improprieties 

raised to NRC by external sources, onsite or offsite. 

MD 8.8 is available on the NRC public website at the following link: http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/management-directives/volumes/vol-8.html

The most recent version of NUREG/BR-0240, “Raising Safety Concerns to the NRC,” is 

available on the NRC public website at the following link: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/brochures/br0240/

NUREG/BR-0240 provides a plain language description of NRC’s allegation program and 

contains information pertinent to individuals who choose to use it, including information about 

alleger identity protection, confidentiality, how discrimination concerns are handled, and SCWE. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

11

2.0 Responsibilities and Authorities 

The responsibilities and authorities for implementation of the NRC Allegation Program are 

provided in MD 8.8, Section III. Responsibilities and authorities are provided in MD 8.8 Sections 

III.A through III.L for the following offices/positions:

III.A The Commission 

III.B Executive Director for Operations (EDO) 

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

Compliance Programs (DEDMRT) 

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

III.E Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

III.F Director, Office of Information Services (OIS) 

III.G Director, Office of Investigations (OI) 

III.H Director, Office of Enforcement (OE) 

III.I Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs (FSME) (now Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS))

III.J Regional Administrators and Headquarters Office Directors 

III.K Agency Allegation Advisor (AAA) 

III.L Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) 

Allegation Manual Appendix C provides information on how to contact the agency OACs. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

12

3.0 Allegation Intake 

3.1 Allegation Receipt 

3.1.a Allegation Definition

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 suspected 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 the Manual Glossary (Manual 

Section 9.0). (8.8 Handbook, Section I.A.1)

3.1.b Alleger Definition 

An "alleger" is any individual or 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. Any NRC employee may receive an allegation and an alleger’s concern may 

be made known to NRC via several methods (e.g., in person, by telephone, by letter, by email, in print). An allegation may also be recognized by an NRC staff member in information 

provided in a public forum including, but not limited to: television, radio, newspaper, 

internet, social media. (8.8 Handbook, Sections I.A.2 and II.A) The NRC maintains a 

Facebook account, a Twitter account, a YouTube account, and a blog on its public website. 

These points of contact are monitored for allegations by the NRC Office of Public Affairs 

(OPA).

The most common sources of allegations are licensee employees, former licensee 

employees, contractor employees, former contractor employees, or individuals who provide 

allegations anonymously. NRC commonly refers to allegers in these categories as “onsite 

sources” (NRC assumes that most anonymous allegations are provided by licensee onsite 

personnel who are unsure or fearful of having their identity associated with the concern(s)). 

Other less common sources of allegations to NRC are private citizens, special interest 

groups, State and Local government representatives, representatives of other Federal 

agencies, and the news media. 

While the NRC allegation program was developed and intended to field concerns provided 

to the NRC by external sources, there is one type of concern raised internally by NRC staff 

that is tracked in the allegation program. As indicated in Manual Section 3.1.a above, 

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

OI is also processed as an allegation. This is to permit the responsible action office to track 

all OI activity related to action office licensees in a database over which the action office has 

control (i.e., AMS). Since AMS tracks all other assertions of potential wrongdoing (i.e., 

those provided by allegers or identified by the licensee), it is prudent from an administrative 

standpoint to also track the other assertions of potential wrongdoing that may be 

investigated by OI (i.e., those identified by NRC staff) in AMS. It is noted that if an NRC 

staff-identified wrongdoing matter is entered into AMS, but ultimately does not result in the 

initiation of an OI investigation, the item is re-categorized in the AMS database as a "nonallegation," and provided back to responsible NRC staff for whatever action is deemed 

appropriate. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

13

3.1.c Collect calls 

In general, NRC employees are not permitted to accept collect telephone calls from sources 

external to the agency. However, it is appropriate to accept a collect call from an alleger or 

potential alleger. This exception to Management Directive 2.3,”Telecommunications,” has 

been approved by the Infrastructure Operations Branch Chief in the NRC Office of 

Information Services (OIS). 

3.1.d NRC Staff Member/Alleger Interaction 

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

professional, and responsive to the alleger (8.8 Handbook, Section II.B.1). The manner in 

which NRC staff interacts with an alleger is a measure of program integrity and affects how

allegers, other NRC staff, and the public view the allegation program. The staff member 

should not question the alleger’s motivation or suggest that contacting the NRC was in any 

way inappropriate. Also, the treatment of an alleger should not vary based on the apparent 

safety significance of the allegation. Inappropriate NRC handling of issues of lesser 

significance may affect the willingness of individuals to raise significant safety issues. 

3.1.e Allegation Receipt and Provision of Identity Protection Information 

3.1.e.1 Receiving the Allegation 

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 NRC review of the concern(s) (see 

Manual Section 3.1.o. and Manual Exhibit 1). If the alleger’s name and contact 

information are not initially provided, effort should be made to obtain that information 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. If the alleger is willing to provide 

his or her name and contact information, he or she is informed that NRC will provide 

feedback regarding the allegation by way of the responsible regional or headquarters 

office, that is, the action office. (8.8 Handbook, Sections II.B.4(a), (b), and (c)) 

As indicated, an effort should be made during the initial contact with an alleger to inform 

the alleger of the degree to which NRC can protect his/her identity. Manual Section 4.0 

discusses the standard level of identity protection provided to all allegers along with 

guidance related to the granting, if necessary, of confidential source status to an alleger. 

Manual Exhibit 1, “Information to be Obtained/Provided During the Initial Contact with 

the Alleger,” and Manual Exhibit 1A, “Sample Allegation Intake Form,” provide a 

summary of the information to be related to the alleger regarding identity protection. If 

the allegation program identity protection policy was not discussed during the initial 

contact with an alleger who has provided his/her identity to the NRC, and release of the 

alleger’s identity is necessary in order for NRC to evaluate the allegation, an effort 

should be made as soon as possible to inform the alleger about the allegation process 

identity protection policy and why NRC believes release of the alleger’s identity is 

necessary. Otherwise, information regarding the allegation process identity protection 

policy will normally be provided in the acknowledgment letter to the alleger. 

I
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

14

3.1.e.2 Allegation Receipt by Non-Technical Personnel 

If a non-technical staff member receives a telephone call from an alleger, the nontechnical staff member should attempt to obtain the alleger’s contact information and 

then forward the caller to responsible regional or headquarters office allegation staff, 

enforcement staff, the responsible branch chief, or a technical staff member as soon as 

possible. If an appropriate technical staff member is not available, or if the alleger does 

not want to be transferred, the non-technical staff member receiving the call should 

obtain as much information as possible from the alleger, including the alleger’s name, 

home mailing address, and home phone number (if the alleger is willing to provide 

contact information), or find out if the alleger would be willing to participate in a 

subsequent telephone call with more knowledgeable regional or headquarters office 

technical staff. The non-technical staff member should provide the alleger with call back 

information for the regional or headquarters office allegation staff. 

3.1.e.3 Allegation Receipt Date 

Since agency goals have been established (see Manual Section 8.1.c) for accomplishing 

certain allegation process milestones (for example, providing the allegation to the 

appropriate OAC, convening the initial ARB meeting, issuing an acknowledgment letter 

to the alleger), the date of allegation receipt must be established. General guidance is 

that the date of allegation receipt is the date the information containing the allegation is 

received by the agency, either by an individual employee, or via a regional or 

headquarters office docket room. However, clarification of the allegation receipt date 

may be necessary in certain circumstances, as described below: 

 For allegations submitted in hard copy to the agency (mail, package receipt), the

date of allegation receipt is the date the information is marked as received by the

regional or headquarters office docket room. There have been instances when a

received allegation was delayed in being provided to the appropriate OAC due to

administrative issues or an initial lack of recognition that the received information

contained an allegation. While the responsible action office should inform the alleger

of the reason for any delay in feedback, the agency allegation receipt date will not be

altered as a result of the delay.

 For allegations received by telephone, the allegation receipt date is the date of the

telephone conversation, not the date the NRC employee documents the allegation (if

done at a later time).

 For allegations received by electronic mail (e-mail), the allegation receipt date is

normally the date of the incoming e-mail message. This will always apply for

electronic mail submitted to contact points on the NRC public website (such as NRC

Allegation@nrc.gov) because these contact points are monitored on a continuous 

basis by the agency. However, for allegations submitted by e-mail to an individual 

employee, some discretion may be applied in establishing the allegation receipt date, 

since employees are not required to monitor their work e-mail accounts on 

weekends, holidays, or when in leave status. For example, if an allegation is

submitted to an NRC employee’s e-mail account while the NRC employee is on

annual leave, the allegation receipt date will be established when the NRC employee

checks his/her incoming e-mail after returning from leave.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

15

 For allegations forwarded to the staff by OIG, the allegation receipt date is the date

the responsible office received the information transferred from OIG. This is

because OIG is allotted time to evaluate information received by that office for

potential NRC staff misconduct, waste, fraud, or abuse, before transferring the

information to the technical staff (see Manual Sections 3.2.e and 5.1.a.2).

 For allegations received during an OI interview, the allegation receipt date may vary

depending on the context of the issue discussed. Normally, if an allegation is

provided during an individual’s interview with OI, the OI investigator is to document

the allegation immediately after the interview, and forward it to the appropriate OAC

within 5 calendar days. However, on occasion, an allegation provided during an OI

interview may not initially be recognized as an allegation because it is interpreted by

the investigator as amplifying evidence related to the wrongdoing matter under

investigation. If this occurs, and the allegation is not recognized until a subsequent

review of the OI transcript by responsible technical staff, the allegation receipt date

may be established as the date the technical staff member reviewed the OI

transcript. This is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the

information provided and NRC staff participating in the interview (see Manual Section

3.2.s).

If other unique circumstances are presented that put the establishment of the allegation 

receipt date into question, consult the AAA.

3.1.f Providing NRC Contact Information to the Alleger 

3.1.f.1 OAC Contact Information 

The OAC is the normal point of contact for an alleger (see Manual Section 3.3.b.8). 

After obtaining the allegation detail, if the NRC employee receiving an allegation is not 

the OAC, the receiving employee should provide the alleger with contact information for 

the action office OAC, if known, and/or with the toll free number of the regional or 

headquarters office that will process the allegation. 

3.1.f.2 The NRC Safety Hotline 

In addition to providing the NRC regional and headquarters office toll free telephone 

numbers, NRC Form 3, “Notice to Employees,” also provides the toll free telephone 

number for the NRC Safety Hotline (1-800-695-7403). This toll free number is also 

provided when one clicks the “Report a Safety Concern” link on the home page of the 

NRC public website. If dialed during normal working hours, the call is routed to the 

regional OAC in the area of the call. If the call is not answered by the OAC or if it is 

made during off-hours, the NRC Safety Hotline will transfer to the Headquarters 

Operations Officer, who will take the allegation and relay the information to the 

responsible OAC for processing during the next business day or immediately to the 

appropriate NRC duty officer if the allegation involves an immediate or significant safety 

issue. Regarding connection with an OAC during working hours, it is noted that the NRC 

Safety Hotline is geographically based, i.e., the toll free call will be directed to the 

regional office OAC with oversight for the geographical area from which the telephone 

call originates. For this reason, if an alleger raises concerns about an NRC licensed 

facility in the geographical area of one NRC Region but does not live in that area, the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

16

alleger should not be provided with the NRC Safety Hotline number for future contact 

with NRC but rather should be provided with the toll free number for the regional or 

headquarters office that is responsible for evaluating the allegation. This geographical 

restriction also applies to cell phone numbers, i.e., if the NRC Safety Hotline is dialed 

from a cell phone, the regional OAC related to the cell phone’s area code will be 

contacted regardless of the caller’s physical location.

3.1.g Caller Identification 

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 NRC for future reference, if needed. 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/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?”

If the caller indicates that it is acceptable for NRC to call the number in the future, if 

necessary, the caller should be asked whether the number on caller ID is his/her mobile 

phone, a home phone, or a place of employment. 

In this instance, the allegation receipt documentation should clearly document that the 

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

information, and the alleger’s response to the above question. [Note: Any indication that 

this practice is negatively impacting the allegation program should be reported to the 

Agency Allegation Advisor.] (8.8 Handbook, Section II.B.4(d)) 

3.1.h Providing an Allegation to the Appropriate Action Office 

If the NRC initial contact person does not have the capability to evaluate the information 

provided or to determine the appropriate action office within NRC, the initial contact person 

should, after obtaining as much information as possible from the alleger, inform the alleger 

that he/she will be contacted by another member of the NRC staff who is more familiar with 

the issues. This initial contact person should make every effort to contact a regional or 

headquarters office OAC or personnel in OE responsible for oversight of the allegation 

program to assure that the issue is forwarded to the appropriate action office as quickly as 

possible. This should be done within 5 calendar days of receiving the allegation and 

immediately if the allegation is perceived to involve an immediate and/or significant safety 

issue or otherwise warrant more prompt attention. 

Regarding the assignment of action office responsibility for processing a received allegation 

within the agency, the general guidance is that allegations related to activities at licensed 

facilities be assigned to the regional or headquarters office responsible for oversight of the 

facility-in-question. Allegations that are generic in nature or that apply to activities uniquely 

conducted by offices located in NRC headquarters (e.g., vendor inspection, review of power 

reactor license change requests) are normally assigned to the responsible headquarters 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

17

office. There may be exceptions to this general guidance based on the information 

provided, and the number and complexity of the concerns. Other specific guidance related 

to the assignment of the allegation action office is provided below: 

 Region I is responsible for:

o materials issues located in the geographical area of Region I and Region II

combined, including the forwarding of issues to Agreement States in those

geographical areas

o allegations related to the U.S. Navy

o allegations related to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

 Region II is responsible for:

o allegations related to activities at fuel facilities, regardless of their geographic

location

o allegations related to activities at power reactor or fuel facility construction sites

 Region III is responsible for:

o allegations involving Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals, regardless of their

geographic location

 Region IV is responsible for :

o allegations related to the U.S. Air Force

o allegations related to Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Mississippi , which is located in

the geographical area of Region II (Region I retains responsibility for the oversight of

materials issues in the State of Mississippi)

o allegations related to the Callaway Plant in Missouri, which is located in the

geographical area of Region III (Region III retains responsibility for the oversight of

materials issues in the State of Missouri)

 The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) is responsible for:

o allegations related to decommissioned research and test reactors (RTRs)

o allegations related to the inappropriate sale of radioactive material on the internet

 The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) is responsible for:

o allegations related to operating RTRs

 The Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) is responsible for:

o allegations related to offsite emergency preparedness issues (NSIR maintains the

agency’s liaison with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA))

o allegations related to security Force-on-Force exercises

o allegations related to terrorist threats or other threat assessment matters

 The Office of International Programs (OIP) is responsible for :

o concerns related to the improper import or export of radioactive material

 Financial assurance, decommissioning funding, and facility insurance matters are

assigned to the headquarters office responsible for oversight of the related licensed

facility

Following the tsunami that caused destruction of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

18

facility in Japan, the agency received many concerns about the results of the accident and 

what the NRC has learned from the incident that could be applied to commercial power 

reactors in the U.S. While a small percentage of the concerns were U. S. plant-specific 

matters that were addressed via the allegation program, the large majority of the concerns 

were general and related to additional requirements considered by the NRC for commercial 

power reactors in the U.S. to address lessons learned. These general matters were not 

processed as allegations and were addressed through the recently established Japan 

Lessons-Learned Project Directorate in NRR. Additional concerns related to the Fukushima 

Daiichi event should be forwarded via e-mail to: JLD.PublicResource@nrc.gov

3.1.i Alleger Request for No Further Contact 

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 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). (8.8 Handbook, Section II.B.6(a)) 

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 directed by 

the Allegation Review Board (ARB), attempt an additional contact with the alleger. 

Such communication should be made verbally, if possible, preferably not at the alleger’s 

place of employment. All communications with the alleger shall be documented in the 

allegation file. 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. (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.B.6(b)) 

The purpose of this additional attempt to contact the alleger is to obtain additional 

information related to the allegation, if needed; 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 NRC issuing an RFI to the licensee; to 

explain the advantages of continued involvement in the allegation process; and to 

encourage the alleger’s continued involvement. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.B.6(c)) 

Sometimes, the alleger will continue to reject contact with the NRC even after the additional 

contact from NRC discussed earlier in this Manual Section is made. In such cases, the 

contacting staff member should encourage the alleger to, at a minimum, accept allegation 

closure documentation from NRC regarding his or her concerns so that he/she can review 

NRC’s conclusions and provide feedback, if desired. 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, 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 NRC 

determines that additional information is needed to ensure adequate public health and 

safety. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.B.6(d))
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

19

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 documentation that NRC was 

unable to contact the alleger; or the ARB record documenting an ARB decision not to 

attempt an additional contact with the alleger. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.B.6(e)) 

3.1.j Receipt of Security-Related Allegations 

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 or Safeguards Information 

(see Management Directive (MD) 12.7, “NRC Safeguards Information Security Program,” 

MD 12.5, “NRC Automated Information Security Program,” MD 12.4, “NRC 

Telecommunications System Security Program,” and MD 12.2,”NRC Classified Information 

Security Program,” for additional details). If a setting is inappropriate for transmitting such 

information, separate arrangements will be made to enable proper transmittal. (8.8 

Handbook, Sections II.B.5(a)and II.B.5(b)) 

- When interacting with allegers such as security officers or others likely to be in 

possession of Safeguards Information (SGI), it is important to remind these individuals 

that such information requires special handling in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. For 

example, e-mails require encryption, mailing requires double wrapping, phone 

calls/facsimiles must be on a secure line, etc. 

- If it is suspected that the concern may include SGI, it is important to verify this prior to 

engaging the licensee. Appropriate NRC personnel with expertise in the area should 

have access to secure phone or facsimile lines and the use of such lines is encouraged 

to ensure a thorough discussion and well-informed decision. 

- As always, the name of the alleger should be withheld from the licensee if at all possible. 

When it is necessary to provide the alleger’s name to retrieve and properly control SGI, 

responsible NRC personnel should ensure that the information is, in fact, SGI before 

releasing the alleger’s name. Per allegation process guidance, the alleger should be 

notified if his/her name or other personnel identifier is to be, or has been, released. 

Given NRC’s authority to classify SGI, there is no requirement to gain acceptance from 

the alleger that the concern involves SGI, or to delay corrective actions to enable the 

alleger to provide feedback. 

3.1.k Off-the-Record Information 

NRC does not accept “off-the-record” information from allegers. An alleger who attempts to 

provide information “off-the-record” is to be advised that all information received by NRC is 

accepted officially and appropriately acted upon. (8.8 Handbook, Sections II.B.3(a) and 

II.B.3(b)) Similarly, an alleger will occasionally provide information to a member of the NRC

staff who knows the alleger’s identity, but request that his/her concerns be treated 

“anonymously.” In this instance, the receiving employee should employ the guidance 

provided in Manual Section 3.1.i above. The alleger’s identity shall be recorded in the 

allegation file for future reference, if NRC should determine that it is necessary to contact 

the alleger to pursue a safety matter. 

3.1.l Alleger Interview 

In some cases, either as part of initial allegation receipt or at a later point in the evaluation of 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

20

an allegation, 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 a formal interview with 

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 related 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. (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.J.2)

3.1.m NRC/Alleger Meeting Location 

Any meeting between NRC and an alleger at the licensee’s facility may compromise the 

alleger's identity. However, if the licensee’s facility is the only plausible site for such a 

meeting, the meeting should be arranged at a location that is comfortable for the alleger and 

that will provide as much privacy as possible. An alleger may wish to meet in person at an 

offsite location to provide his/her concerns to the NRC. In this instance, effort should be 

made to accommodate the alleger’s request. However, it is important that the location of the 

information exchange be comfortable and safe for both the alleger and NRC staff 

participating in the meeting. If the alleger requests to meet at an offsite location, the staff 

member who received the request should contact the OAC and his/her supervisor to obtain 

agreement as to an appropriate location for the information exchange. Consideration should 

be given to having another NRC staff member accompany the interviewer to increase the 

accuracy of the information recorded. 

3.1.n Dealing with Hostile/Abusive Interaction 

If during contact with an alleger, the alleger becomes hostile and/or abusive, the NRC 

employee is not required to continue the discussion and withstand the abuse. In this 

situation, the NRC employee should politely end the conversation and either offer to recontact the alleger or provide the alleger the opportunity to re-contact NRC after he/she has 

had an opportunity to collect himself/herself. 

3.1.o Information to be Obtained/Provided During the Initial Contact with the 

Alleger 

The NRC staff member receiving the allegation will be courteous and professional. The 

NRC staff member will ask appropriate questions to obtain as much information as possible 

about the alleger’s concerns. Suggested information to be obtained, questions to ask, and 

information to provide follow (a condensed version of this information, along with the 

standard alleger identity protection provisions, is also reflected in Manual Exhibit 1). A 

sample Allegation Intake Form incorporating this information is provided in Manual Exhibit 

1A. 

Concern Details: 

 Nature and details of the allegation concerns. For each concern, ask:

- When did it occur? Was there a sequence of events leading to the problem or is the

problem represented by a sequence of events? 

- Where did it occur (facility, building, location)? 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

21

- What equipment/system is involved (equipment description, model, series, etc.)? 

- Who is involved? 

- Were there any witnesses to the issue/event? If so, what are their names? 

- Can the alleger explain how or why this happened? 

- Does the alleger know of a specific requirement, procedure, commitment, etc. that 

was violated? 

- What is the potential safety impact of the matter? 

- How did the alleger find out about the concern? Did the alleger identify the concern 

or find out about it from other sources? 

- Is there any physical evidence that the NRC can examine? 

- What records should the NRC review? 

- Does the alleger have any documentation that would assist the NRC in its review? 

- Are there other individuals NRC should contact for additional information? (If others 

are named by the alleger, the alleger should be informed that these people may or 

may not be interviewed by the NRC, as the NRC will determine during the course of 

its evaluation of the concern whether contact is necessary.) 

- What is the current status of the issue? Is it ongoing? Are any corrective or 

compensatory actions in place? 

 Ask the alleger if he/she raised the concerns with management. If so, who in

management was notified and what action has management taken? [Note: If the

concern(s) discussed by the alleger is/are already in the licensee’s corrective action

program but has/have not yet been evaluated or resolved by the licensee, the alleger

should be informed that NRC will not normally pursue such matters without an

explanation as to why it is necessary for NRC to pursue the issue independent of the

licensee’s corrective action process. That is, the alleger should be asked to explain why

the issue has not been or will not be appropriately addressed through the licensee’s

corrective action process, preferably with specific examples of inadequate licensee

corrective action.]

 Ask the alleger if he/she would object to the NRC requesting information from the

licensee in writing or referring the concern(s) to another appropriate entity (e.g., State,

Agreement State, other Federal agency) for review. If the alleger objects, ask the

alleger to clarify why such a request would be inappropriate or ineffective and document

the alleger’s response for the allegation file.

Identity Protection: 

 Inform the alleger about the standard identity protection provisions related to the NRC

allegation program:

Allegation Process Standard Identity Protection Policy

NRC takes all reasonable efforts not to disclose your identity. Identifying 

information is only distributed internally by NRC staff on a need-to-know basis. 

Ifasked, we will neither confirm nor deny that you raised a concern to the NRC, except 

when required to do so for any of the following (rare and exceptional) reasons: 

• Overriding health or safety issue

• Court order or NRC adjudicatory authority or to inform Congress or State or

Federal agencies in furtherance of NRC responsibilities under law or public trust
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

22

• To support a hearing on an enforcement matter

• Disclosure necessary to further a wrongdoing investigation (OI discretion)

• If you take actions that are inconsistent with and override the purpose of protecting

your identity (e.g., informing the media)

• Disclosure mandated by FOIA

- If alleger has no objection to being identified, NRC may reveal his/her identity outside

the agency if it is necessary to evaluate the allegation

- For discrimination concerns - inform the alleger that NRC will disclose his/her identity

to the licensee and/or the employer during an NRC discrimination investigation

- If alleger states that many are aware of his/her concern, it is acceptable to inform

him/her that, while the NRC will continue efforts to protect his/her identity, doing 

so may be difficult 

 Ask the alleger if he/she is concerned about the protection of his/her identity. If the

alleger indicates that NRC protection of his/her identity is not of concern, remind the

alleger (while informing him/her of the NRC alleger identity protection provisions) that, in

any event, an alleger’s identity is not normally released outside the NRC unless

releasing the alleger’s identity is necessary to obtain resolution to the allegation, or

otherwise serves the needs of the agency.

 If the alleger provides contact information but requests no further contact from the NRC,

refer to Manual Section 3.1.i for specific instructions related to handling such a request.

Contact and Identifying Information: 

If not already provided during the discussion of the alleger’s concerns, obtain the following 

contact and identifying information before concluding the discussion: 

 The date of the contact

 The alleger’s full name, home mailing address (not business), telephone number, and

employer

 The facility and activity involved, and the alleger’s position or relationship to the facility or

activity involved. If the alleger indicates that he/she is a former licensee employee or a

former contractor employee, clarify whether the stated concern involves a matter related

to the alleger’s activities when he/she was a licensee or contract employee. If the

concern does not involve matters related to the alleger’s activities while a licensee or

contract employee, the source of the allegation should be characterized as a private

citizen vs. a former licensee employee or former contractor employee.

 Obtain the alleger’s preference for method and time of contact. [Note: Electronic mail

(e-mail) is an acceptable method of contact if it is the alleger’s preference and it is

explained to the alleger that NRC may not be able to protect information transmitted over

the Internet.] If the alleger prefers the standard form of contact (written

correspondence), he/she will receive a copy of the current version of the NRC Allegation

Program brochure, NUREG/BR-0240, “Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC,” along
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

23

with his/her allegation acknowledgment letter. If the alleger prefers to receive feedback 

electronically, the brochure is available on the NRC public website at the following link: 

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

A Spanish translation of the NRC Allegation Program brochure is also available at the 

same web link. 

Additional Information to be Obtained/Provided When an Alleger Has Raised a 

Discrimination Concern: 

 What was the alleger’s protected activity? (e.g., What safety issue(s) did the alleger

raise?, Did the alleger refuse to engage in what he/she felt was an illegal practice after

identifying the alleged illegal practice to the employer?, Had the alleger requested NRC

to institute action against the licensee?, Did the alleger testify before NRC, Congress, or

in any Federal or State proceeding regarding licensee compliance with NRC regulatory

statutes?)

 When did the alleger engage in protected activity?

 What personnel action was taken against the alleger? (e.g., employment termination,

suspension, layoff, demotion, transfer, lower performance appraisal)

 When was the personnel action taken? (Note: If the alleger was informed of a

forthcoming personnel action, but the personnel action has not yet been taken,

document the date that the alleger was informed that personnel action was to be taken

against him/her.)

 Was the individual who took the personnel action against the alleger aware that the

alleger engaged in protected activity? If so, how?

 If the alleger’s protected activity involved providing information to NRC, was

management aware that the alleger provided information to NRC?

 What does the alleger believe are the links/causal connections between the protected

activity and the subsequent personnel action? (e.g., temporal proximity, disparate

treatment, lack of documentation to support taking the personnel action)

 Ask the alleger if there is any documentation that would assist the NRC in reviewing the

discrimination matter.

 Failure-to-Hire Discrimination Claims: If the alleger’s discrimination claim involves a

failure-to-hire, a higher threshold for establishing prima facie applies. See Manual

Section 5.2.a.7 and Manual Exhibit 26, “Supporting Information Related to a Failure-toHire Discrimination Concern,” for a list of additional questions to ask.

 If the alleger is still employed at the facility, and expresses concern that retaliatory action

will be taken against him/her in the near future, obtain details about the threatened

action and the likelihood of its occurrence. For example:
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

24

 Is the alleger’s concern based on a specific threat (e.g., “My supervisor told me I

would be fired on (date)”) or is it based on hearsay (e.g., “I’ve heard rumor that I may

be fired”)?

 If the threat is specific, is it documented (e.g., in an e-mail, in a memo or note to the

alleger or to the alleger’s personnel file)?

 Are other individuals aware of the threat of retaliation?

If the expressed fear of retaliation appears credible, the alleger should be informed that 

the matter will be discussed with NRC management and that NRC will contact the 

alleger in the future regarding further options. In such situations, NRC may, with the 

alleger’s approval, consider notifying the licensee about the agency’s knowledge of the 

potential retaliatory action, potential effects on the work environment and consequences 

to the licensee if discrimination is substantiated, and the NRC’s intention to monitor the 

situation. The NRC decision to notify the licensee should be determined at an ARB 

meeting with support from OGC or regional counsel and OI. Such action by NRC is 

independent of the Early ADR or DOL processes. 

 Ask the alleger if he/she has contacted the Department of Labor (DOL), a State

whistleblower protection office (for state employees or for concerns against Agreement

State licensees), or the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (for federal employees)

regarding the alleged discrimination matter. A federal employee may also be informed of

his/her ability to file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). It is noted

that Section 629 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 added NRC employees, NRC

contractors and subcontractors, and DOE employees, contractors, and subcontractors to

those individuals covered under ERA Section 211. This statute allows these individuals

to file discrimination claims with DOL, and for federal employees, in lieu of or in addition

to MSPB or OSC. Discrimination claims filed by NRC employees under ERA Section

211 are not processed as allegations.

 Federal Employees: MSPB and OSC

For federal employees with a discrimination complaint, the following guidance 

applies. While the employee may initially contact either MSPB or the OSC, initial 

OSC actions may involve efforts to have the matter addressed through normal 

channels before OSC will initiate an investigation. If the alleged retaliation involves a 

personnel action that is applicable to MSPB, OSC will normally suggest that the 

employee first participate in the MSPB appeal process. The employee may file an 

appeal directly to MSPB no later than 30 days after the effective date of the action 

being appealed, or 30 days after receipt of the agency’s decision, whichever is later.

If the personnel actions do not fall under MSPB jurisdiction, the employee must first 

file a complaint with the OSC before filing with MSPB. After the OSC complaint 

process is exhausted, the employee may then file an appeal with MSPB no later than 

65 days after the date that OSC notified the employee in writing that it had 

terminated its investigation. If OSC has not notified the employee that it will seek 

corrective action within 120 days of the filing date, the employee may file an appeal 

with MSPB at any time after the 120-day period expires. 

 State Agency Employees
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

25

It is noted that for employees of State agencies, filing a discrimination complaint with 

DOL may not be an option. 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. 

 If the alleger has not contacted DOL, a State whistleblower protection office, or

MSPB/OSC, as applicable, provide the appropriate contact information to the alleger or

direct the alleger to the responsible OAC, who will provide the contact information. If

DOL is the appropriate contact, allegers are to be instructed to contact one of the ten

DOL/OSHA Regional Offices, depending on the location of the corporate entity involved

in the alleged discriminatory action. The web link below provides a map of the ten DOL

regions. On the web page, click on the region where the corporate entity involved in the

alleged discriminatory act is located to bring up the address of the associated

DOL/OSHA Regional Office.

http://www.osha.gov/html/RAmap.html

A DOL/OSHA Fact Sheet entitled “Your Rights as a Whistleblower” is available at the 

following web link: 

https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3638.pdf

Manual Exhibit 9 provides the text of 29 CFR Part 24, “U.S. Department of Labor 

Procedures for Handling Discrimination Complaints Under Federal Employee Protection 

Statutes.”

Contact information for MSPB is available at the following web link: 

http://www.mspb.gov/contact/contact.htm

Contact information for OSC is available at the following web link: 

http://www.osc.gov/contacts.htm

 If the alleger raises a discrimination concern, it is appropriate to provide the alleger with

contact information for DOL for the purposes of seeking a personal remedy. The

following applies to the alleger’s interface with DOL:

 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 definition of

“Protected Activity” in the Manual Glossary).

 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.

 A written complaint must be filed with DOL within 180 days of the date of the

discriminatory action or the date any notice, in writing or otherwise, of an adverse
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

26

personnel action is received by the alleger, whichever occurred first. 

 Any technical issue that provides a basis for the discrimination concern that the

alleger indicates has not been adequately resolved by the licensee is evaluated by

the NRC allegation process without regard to action that may be taken by DOL. In

this regard, when NRC is notified by DOL that it is investigating a complaint of

discrimination under ERA Section 211, and the alleger has not also brought 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 NRC), submit the DOL complaint for entry into the

allegation process, and contact the alleger to obtain clarification with regard to the

alleger’s concerns.

When a discrimination concern is provided directly to NRC and not DOL, an alleger

is to be informed of the information above regarding DOL and that:

 NRC will determine whether or not an investigation is warranted based on the

information provided by the alleger.

 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.

 NRC may complete its investigation of the discrimination concern before

resolution by DOL and may take action independent of DOL.

 DO NOT provide information about the Early-ADR process during the initial contact with

an alleger who is raising a discrimination concern, since the ARB (with OGC/Regional

Counsel support) must establish that an alleger has articulated a prima-facie showing of

potential discrimination before Early-ADR may be offered to an alleger.

Additional Information to be Obtained When an Alleger Has Raised a SCWE Concern: 

The following are suggested questions that may be used when discussing an alleger’s 

assertion of a problem with the SCWE at the facility-in-question, i.e., a “chilling effect” or 

chilled work environment. A chilling effect is defined as 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. A chilled 

work environment is 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. It is not intended that these questions be asked 

verbatim, but rather, that they form the basis for gathering insights regarding whether there 

are impediments to a SCWE at the facility. 

 “Are there any specific concerns you or others haven’t raised? If so, will you tell us

about them now?”

 “What specifically happened and when that impacted your willingness to raise safety

concerns (or to challenge actions or decisions you believe are unsafe)?”
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

27

 “What types of concerns are you hesitant to raise and why? Can you give some

examples?” [Try to ascertain what impact such concerns would have on safety (nuclear

safety related?) by getting examples.]

 “What avenues are you hesitant to use to raise concerns and why?” [e.g., supervisor,

senior management, corrective action program, employee concerns program, NRC, etc.]

 “Which organizations and how many individuals are impacted by the chilled work

environment?”

 ”Who is contributing to the chilled work environment and what influence does this

individual have on those that are chilled?”

 “Do you believe management is aware of the chilled work environment? If yes, have

actions been taken to address the situation and do you feel the actions have been

effective?”

 “In general, are you aware of actions taken by your management to prevent and detect

chilled work environments? If yes, do you feel their actions are generally effective?”

3.2 Allegation Receipt Considerations and Handling Scenarios

The most common allegation receipt scenario involves a technical concern related to an NRClicensed facility that is received by NRC from an “onsite source.” “Onsite sources” are 

comprised of licensee employees, contractor employees, former licensee or contractor 

employees who raise concerns about activities occurring while they were onsite and/or 

otherwise involved in licensed activities, or individuals who provide allegations anonymously 

(NRC assumes that most anonymous allegations are provided by onsite personnel who are 

unsure or fearful of having their identity associated with their concern(s)). However, a number 

of allegations are received that do not follow this framework. Some allegation receipt 

circumstances and some allegation sources require specific handling considerations. The 

following sections describe a number of specific allegation receipt circumstances and 

associated processing considerations. 

3.2.a Receipt of a Concern Involving an Agreement State 

3.2.a.1 Agreement State Licensee and Agreement State Performance 

Concerns 

Individuals who contact NRC with concerns about Agreement State licensees are often 

unaware of the Agreement State program. 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). Such 

matters are provided to the appropriate Regional State Agreement Officer (RSAO) for 

referral to the Agreement State and are not processed as allegations. (8.8 Handbook, 

Sections II.D.1) If such an item has already been entered into AMS, the entry shall be 

coded as a "Non-Allegation" at the AMS Allegation Level, and individual concerns shall 

be coded as "Agreement State" at the AMS Concern Level. 

If the individual is unwilling to contact or to have his or her identity disclosed to the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

28

Agreement State, the NRC will still refer the concern(s) to the Agreement State, without 

providing the individual’s identity. Such matters are entered into the allegation process 

and tracked to closure. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.D.2)

Concerns involving State regulatory bodies that oversee the activities of Agreement 

State licensees are not processed as allegations and include concerns regarding the 

performance of such State regulatory bodies or their personnel, and concerns regarding 

potential wrongdoing committed by State regulatory bodies or their personnel (see 

SECY-98-192, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/commission/secys/1998/secy1998-192/1998-192scy.pdf). If an NRC 

employee receives or is informed about such a concern, it should be promptly forwarded 

to the Agreement State Performance Concerns Coordinator in the Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME) (now NMSS) for 

evaluation outside the allegation process. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.E) If such an item 

has already been entered into AMS, the entry shall be coded as a "Non-Allegation" at 

the AMS Allegation Level, and individual concerns shall be coded as "Agreement State" 

at the AMS Concern Level. 

3.2.a.2 Information to Obtain/Provide Regarding an Agreement StateRelated Concern 

Staff should take the following actions when receiving an Agreement State licensee 

concern in person or by telephone: 

 Obtain as much information as possible from the individual regarding his/her

concern(s) as suggested in Manual Section 3.1.o.

 Inform the individual that his/her concerns are under the jurisdiction of an Agreement

State, explain the Agreement State program (i.e., that the State 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), and

note that the NRC’s course of action in these matters is to refer the concern(s) to the

Agreement State for evaluation. If the individual indicates an objection to NRC

referral of his/her concerns to the Agreement State, the individual is to be informed

that the NRC is compelled to refer the concern(s) to the Agreement State for

evaluation because of program commitments established by the agreement between

NRC and the Agreement State.

 Inform the individual that Agreement States prefer to be contacted directly since it

allows the State to obtain all the necessary information from the source of the

concern(s), facilitates the ability of the State to evaluate and respond to the

concern(s), and provides the advantage of a more timely response to the concerned

individual in most cases.

 Inform the concerned individual that the State may not be able to protect his/her

identity (see Manual Exhibit 2, “Ability of Agreement States to Protect Alleger’s

Identity From Public Disclosure”) and suggest that the concerned individual discuss

any concerns he/she may have about identity protection with the State.

 After the Agreement State program is explained to the concerned individual, ask if
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

29

the concerned individual would like to contact and be contacted by the Agreement 

State. If direct contact with the Agreement State is acceptable to the concerned 

individual, provide the concerned individual with the Agreement State contact 

information (http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/asdirectory.html) and indicate to the concerned 

individual that NRC will be taking no further action other than forwarding the concern 

to the Agreement State. The concern(s) provided by the concerned individual is/are 

then to be provided to the responsible RSAO, who will forward the information to the 

Agreement State. Such matters are not processed as allegations. No ARB meeting, 

entry into AMS, or additional correspondence with the concerned individual is 

necessary. Also, there is no need to request a response from the Agreement State 

in these instances. Concerns raised about Agreement State licensees that are 

received anonymously are handled in a similar fashion in that the concerns are to be 

referred to the Agreement State by the RSAO, are not processed as allegations, and 

no response from the Agreement State is requested. If the anonymous concerned 

individual re-contacts NRC, is able to identify himself/herself as the individual who 

previously raised the concern, and requests feedback regarding the Agreement State 

licensee’s actions, the concerned individual should be informed that the concern was 

forwarded to the Agreement State with no response requested. In this instance, the 

concerned individual should again be provided contact information for the Agreement 

State and asked if he/she would be willing to contact the State directly. Otherwise, 

an effort should be made to obtain the Agreement State response and provide it at a 

later time to the concerned individual. 

3.2.a.3 Allegation of Discrimination against an Agreement State Licensee 

If the individual asserts potential discrimination by an Agreement State licensee for 

raising a safety concern, the individual should be informed that he/she may file a written 

discrimination complaint with DOL within 180 days from the date of the alleger’s 

notification of the discriminatory act, in accordance with the guidance noted in Manual 

Section 3.1.o, or with appropriate State employee protection entities. Since the 

individual's identity would be divulged to the Agreement State licensee as part of a 

DOL/OSHA investigation, it is unlikely that the individual would request NRC to protect 

his/her identity. If the individual were to do so, he/she should be informed that neither 

DOL nor the Agreement State can pursue the discrimination claim without divulging the 

individual's identity. 

It is noted that OI will not normally open an investigation involving an assertion of 

discrimination related to an Agreement State licensee. Also, Early-ADR does not apply 

to a discrimination claim against an Agreement State licensee, since NRC is compelled 

to provide the Agreement State with information about an Agreement State-related 

concern. That is, if NRC-sponsored Early-ADR was to be employed, the concerned 

individual and the Agreement State licensee would be the two parties offered mediation 

via Early-ADR, and the Agreement State would not be engaged, which is contrary to the 

agreement between NRC and the Agreement State. 

If a concerned individual files a discrimination complaint with DOL against an Agreement 

State licensee, but the individual does not contact NRC, the matter is not to be 

processed as an allegation. When the DOL complaint is eventually provided to NRC 

(because of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NRC and DOL, DOL 

will provide a copy of such discrimination complaints to NRC because of their 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

30

relationship to nuclear or radiological safety matters), a copy of the DOL complaint shall 

be provided to the responsible RSAO, who will inform the Agreement State as 

prescribed by the Agreement. 

3.2.a.4 Actions If Concerned Individual Does Not Agree to Contact the 

Agreement State 

If the concerned individual’s identity is known, and the concerned individual does not 

agree to contact or be contacted by the Agreement State and/or has concerns about the 

release of his/her identity to Agreement State personnel, concerns submitted in this 

context that meet the NRC definition of an allegation shall be processed as an allegation 

and entered into AMS for tracking. In this instance, NRC’s allegation identity protection 

policy should also be reviewed with the alleger (see Manual Exhibit 1). 

The concern(s) provided by the alleger are provided to the responsible RSAO, who will 

forward the concern(s) to the Agreement State. The information referred to the 

Agreement State by the RSAO should be in a form that protects the identity of the 

alleger, including rewriting the allegation concern(s), if appropriate. The RSAO should 

request the Agreement State to provide a response to the allegation concerns to an 

appropriate NRC regional contact (i.e., OAC or RSAO). Additionally, if the concerned 

individual indicates that the Agreement State should not subsequently refer the 

allegation to the Agreement State licensee because the alleger questions the ability of 

the Agreement State licensee to respond appropriately to the allegation, NRC (the 

RSAO) may request the Agreement State to refrain from a subsequent referral to the 

Agreement State licensee, unless an overriding safety issue is identified and immediate 

referral to the Agreement State licensee is warranted. However, the ultimate decision as 

to the method of evaluation of the allegation lies with the Agreement State. The RSAO 

will provide documentation of his/her contact with the Agreement State and transmittal of 

the allegation-related information to the OAC for the related allegation file. A copy of the 

Agreement State’s response is provided to the alleger by way of an allegation closure 

letter, or other agreed upon means of correspondence, and constitutes closure of the 

allegation. The closure documentation to the alleger should indicate that the agreement 

between NRC and the Agreement State does provide for periodic NRC monitoring of the 

Agreement State’s follow-up of such matters and that this NRC monitoring occurs either 

during periodic meetings with the Agreement State, or during periodic Integrated 

Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) reviews. 

If the concerned individual does not agree to contact or be contacted by the Agreement 

State and/or has concerns about the release of his/her identity to Agreement State 

personnel, and the Agreement State requests the alleger's identity, follow the Manual 

guidance related to protecting the identity of allegers, including allegers who have been 

granted confidential source status (Manual Section 4.0). 

If an alleger objects to NRC referral of the allegation information to the Agreement State, 

the referral will still be made to the Agreement State, over the alleger's objection, 

protecting the identity of the alleger, because of program commitments between NRC 

and the Agreement State. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

31

3.2.a.5 Actions If Unable to Determine Whether Individual Objects to 

Agreement State Contact 

When concerns involving an Agreement State licensee are received from a known 

individual other than by telephone or in person (e.g., by e-mail, mail, or other written 

correspondence) and telephone contact is possible, the staff should contact the 

individual by telephone and follow the guidance in Manual Sections 3.2.a.2(a) through 

3.2.a.2(e) above regarding the handling of Agreement State-related concerns. If 

telephone contact is not possible (i.e., if the staff is unable to ascertain whether the 

concerned individual does or does not object to having his/her identity provided to the 

Agreement State), the concern(s) should be processed as an allegation and entered into 

AMS. In such instances, the acknowledgment letter to the alleger should offer the 

alleger the opportunity to provide or have the NRC provide his/her identity to the 

Agreement State so that the Agreement State may contact the individual directly 

regarding his/her concerns. If the alleger subsequently contacts NRC and indicates a 

willingness to contact or be contacted by the Agreement State, or that he/she has 

already been in contact with the Agreement State, the allegation may be closed once it 

is confirmed that the Agreement State has the alleger’s contact information.

3.2.a.6 Receipt of Both Agreement State Licensee and Agreement State 

Performance Concerns 

If an alleger raises concerns about an Agreement State licensee in addition to

performance or wrongdoing concerns related to Agreement State officials, the 

Agreement State licensee allegation concerns shall be entered into the allegation 

process by the responsible regional office. The receiving office shall inform NMSS about 

the performance or wrongdoing concerns related to Agreement State officials, and refer 

the details of those concerns to NMSS for processing outside of the allegation process. 

It is presumed, in such scenarios, that the alleger does not prefer to contact or be 

directly contacted by Agreement State oversight personnel since the alleger is also 

asserting performance and/or wrongdoing concerns regarding Agreement State officials. 

After considering the subject matter of the information provided, NMSS may wish to 

process both the Agreement State performance or wrongdoing concerns and the 

allegation concerns, so that the alleger can have a single point of contact. NMSS shall 

discuss this proposed approach with the regional office normally responsible for 

oversight of the related Agreement State licensee activities. If this approach is agreed 

upon, NMSS shall open an allegation to track the evaluation of the allegation concerns. 

If the regional office had already opened an allegation in AMS, it shall be closed and the 

Allegation Level Activity changed to “Transferred Out.” If the information is initially 

received by NMSS, and it is NMSS’s preference to handle both the Agreement State 

performance or wrongdoing concerns and the allegation concerns, NMSS shall notify the 

regional office normally responsible for oversight of the related Agreement State 

licensee activities to gain agreement with the evaluation approach and also so that the 

RSAO is informed about the concerns. 

3.2.a.7 Concerns Involving Both an Agreement State Licensee and Another 

Federal Agency 

Concerns regarding an Agreement State licensee that also fall under the purview of 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

32

another Federal agency will be forwarded to the appropriate Federal agency in 

coordination and concurrent with the referral of the concern to the associated Agreement 

State. If the concerned individual is willing to contact and be contacted directly by 

Agreement State personnel and the other Federal agency about the evaluation of his/her 

concern(s), the concerns, along with the individual’s identifying information, are provided 

to the appropriate RSAO for referral to the Agreement State and are not processed as 

allegations. The referral to the other Federal agency may be accomplished by the 

RSAO or other staff, as assigned. 

If the individual does not want his/her identity disclosed to the Agreement State or the 

other Federal agency, the concern(s) will still be referred to the Agreement State and the 

other Federal agency, in a manner that protects the alleger’s identity, including rewriting 

the concern(s). The concerned individual should be provided with the name of a contact 

person at both the Agreement State and the other Federal agency either in writing or by 

phone. The individual’s concerns related to the Agreement State are to be entered into 

the allegation process and tracked to closure. A copy of the Agreement State’s 

response is provided to the alleger by way of an allegation closure letter, or other agreed 

upon means of correspondence, and constitutes closure of the allegation. The NRC will 

not act as the intermediary between the concerned individual and the other Federal 

agency other than for NRC licensee-related emergency preparedness issues (FEMA). 

Rather, the individual is provided with contact information for the other Federal agency 

and informed that NRC has referred the concern(s) to the other federal agency and that 

he/she would need to contact the other Federal agency if feedback is desired. 

3.2.b Processing Potential Wrongdoing Matters Identified by NRC Staff 

3.2.b.1 NRC Staff Identification of Potential Wrongdoing 

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

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

in its monitoring of related OI follow-up. Additionally, 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 an allegation and identify them for consideration by the allegation 

program, if not identified by the alleger as a potential wrongdoing matter. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.C) 

3.2.b.2 Identifying Potential Wrongdoing in Testimony Provided to the NRC 

Staff may also identify a potential wrongdoing matter on the basis of information 

provided by an external source in other settings not necessarily related to an allegation 

matter (e.g., testimony provided during an enforcement conference, or testimony 

provided by a witness interviewed by OI as part of a separate wrongdoing or 

discrimination investigation). Occasionally, an individual providing testimony will discuss 

a matter involving potential wrongdoing, but not recognize that he/she has described a 

potential wrongful act on his/her part or on the part of a company or another individual. 

In these instances, such matters should be documented, considered as NRC staffidentified potential wrongdoing issues, and submitted to the OAC for consideration by 

the ARB. Normally, allegation correspondence (acknowledgment, status, or closure 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

33

letters) is not provided to the individual who provided the testimony in these cases. If 

responsible NRC staff identify, at any point during its subsequent evaluation, that the 

person who provided the testimony did view the information he/she provided as an 

assertion of potential wrongdoing, the person who provided the testimony should be 

contacted by the OAC or other staff, as assigned, to determine whether he/she would 

like to receive correspondence from NRC related to the evaluation of the potential 

wrongdoing matter. If this occurs, correspondence will be provided to the individual in 

accordance with allegation process guidance. However, acknowledgment letter and 

allegation closure timeliness metrics will not apply in this instance. 

3.2.b.3 ARB Consideration of NRC Staff-Identified Wrongdoing 

Based on the information provided, the ARB, with OI input, will consider whether an OI 

investigation is to be initiated. If the available information provides specific indication of 

potential wrongdoing, the ARB will normally recommend that OI initiate an investigation. 

Manual Section 5.7.a.5(b)(4) provides additional guidance to support NRC staff 

determination as to whether a concern involves a specific indication of potential 

wrongdoing. A matter of this type that does not prompt an OI investigation is not 

considered to be an allegation and should be reflected in AMS as a “non-allegation,” if it 

had already been entered into the AMS database. In these instances, the matter is 

returned to responsible technical staff for processing, as deemed appropriate, in 

accordance with established inspection and program review guidance (e.g., the Reactor 

Oversight Program). 

3.2.b.4 Identifying Potential Wrongdoing in Licensee Corrective Action 

Program Documentation 

With the implementation of the Reactor Oversight Program, it was recognized that NRC 

inspectors could identify issues involving potential wrongdoing during their review of 

licensee-generated documentation. In many cases, such items are identified through 

review of licensee corrective action program (CAP) documents. Such items are to be 

assessed as NRC staff-identified potential wrongdoing vs. licensee-identified potential 

wrongdoing because the licensee is not required to notify the NRC of matters involving 

potential wrongdoing if there is no associated reporting requirement (i.e., if the licensee 

identifies a matter involving potential wrongdoing (including discrimination) through its 

internal processes, it is NRC’s expectation that the licensee will appropriately address 

such matters internally, just as it is NRC’s expectation that the licensee will address 

other technical issues identified internally that do not involve potential wrongdoing and 

that do not fall under NRC reportability requirements). If a licensee does choose to 

formally notify NRC about an issue it believes involves wrongdoing, then it is to be 

processed as a “licensee-identified” potential wrongdoing allegation (see Manual Section 

3.2.c). 

3.2.c Processing Potential Wrongdoing Matters Identified by the Licensee 

3.2.c.1 Licensee-Identified Potential Wrongdoing 

In general, inadequacies discussed during routine conversations between licensee 

employees acting in their official capacity and NRC staff are not intended to be treated 

as allegations. However, if the information provided by the licensee employee provides 

indication of potential wrongdoing, the information should be documented and submitted 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

34

to the OAC for consideration as an allegation. The OAC (in consultation with 

responsible staff and OI) is allotted some discretion as to when the matter should be 

entered as an allegation, depending on the information provided by the licensee and the 

status of the licensee’s investigation. For example, a licensee, as a matter of courtesy, 

may inform NRC that an issue potentially involving wrongdoing or discrimination was 

raised internally and that an internal licensee investigation is being or will be initiated. 

Entering such a matter into the allegation process upon receipt could be premature, 

since the initial NRC action would normally be to wait for the licensee to develop 

preliminary findings or to complete its investigation. If it is determined that the matter will 

not initially be entered into the allegation process, the OAC and/or responsible staff will 

monitor the progress of the licensee’s investigation and obtain feedback, as appropriate. 

Once the licensee’s investigation is completed or at any point in which responsible NRC 

staff find that a specific indication of potential wrongdoing has been articulated or that 

available information provides sufficient evidence for NRC to conclude that 

wrongdoing/discrimination may have occurred, the matter should be entered into the 

allegation process for ARB consideration and discussion with OI regarding the possible 

initiation of an OI investigation. Responsible staff should also keep in mind that 

extension of the time to initiate NRC evaluation may impact the NRC statute of 

limitations related to the imposition of a civil penalty. Manual Section 5.7.a.5(b)(4) 

provides additional guidance to support NRC staff determination as to whether a 

concern involves a specific indication of potential wrongdoing. 

If upon notifying the NRC, the licensee indicates that its internal investigation has 

already been completed, responsible staff should attempt to obtain a copy of the 

licensee’s completed investigation of the matter so that all pertinent facts are available 

for review in determining whether an OI investigation should be initiated. The matter 

should be documented and submitted to the OAC for entry into the allegation process as 

a licensee-identified potential wrongdoing matter. 

Unlike NRC staff-identified potential wrongdoing matters, when a licensee-identified 

issue is entered as an allegation because it is determined to be a matter of potential 

wrongdoing, it will remain characterized as an allegation, regardless of whether or not an 

OI investigation is opened. The reason for retaining the characterization as an allegation 

is that, even if an OI investigation is ultimately not initiated, the allegation process 

provides the staff with a means of documenting how the potential wrongdoing issue was 

ultimately dispositioned by the licensee, since there may not necessarily be any 

additional NRC follow up. Allegation correspondence (acknowledgment, status, or 

closure letters) will not be provided to the licensee staff member who provided the 

information to NRC. However, if an OI investigation is opened regarding the licenseeidentified potential wrongdoing matter, the licensee will be notified of the results of the OI 

investigation in accordance with NRC Enforcement Program guidance (see Part II, 

Sections 1.1.5.1. and 1.1.6 of the Enforcement Manual). 

3.2.c.2 Actions When Licensee Informs NRC about a Completed 

Investigation into an Internally-Raised Discrimination Concern 

Occasionally, a licensee representative, acting in his or her official capacity, will notify 

the NRC about an internally-raised assertion of discrimination for engaging in protected 

activity. Normally, if the licensee has completed an investigation into an internal 

assertion of discrimination for engaging in protected activity, and chooses to inform the 

NRC about the results of the internal investigation, the matter should be entered into the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

35

allegation process for consideration by the ARB, regardless of the licensee’s conclusion. 

As indicated in Manual Section 3.2.c.1, responsible NRC staff should attempt obtain a 

copy of the licensee’s completed investigation into the matter so that all pertinent facts 

are available for responsible NRC staff and the ARB to review in determining whether to 

recommend that an OI investigation be initiated. 

Initial ARB discussion should consider how the issue was resolved by the licensee and 

whether a mutually agreeable settlement between the licensee and the individual was 

reached and documented. If a settlement was reached, and the licensee has provided 

the NRC with a copy of the settlement agreement, a copy of the settlement agreement 

will be provided to OGC where it will be reviewed to determine whether it contains any 

restrictive language. If the agreement contains no restrictive language, NRC may 

consider closing the matter with no investigation or enforcement action, similar to the 

consideration given when settlements are reached via the Early ADR process. 

If the licensee and the individual have accomplished resolution of the discrimination 

matter by other than a documented settlement, the ARB should make an effort to 

determine whether an OI investigation is necessary based on available information. 

After reviewing the licensee-generated documentation that describes the circumstances 

of the discrimination concern and how it was internally resolved, the ARB, with OI input, 

will determine if it is appropriate for OI to proceed with a full investigation. The offer of 

Early ADR is not an option in this instance since the individual did not raise the concern 

directly to NRC and since internal resolution of the discrimination matter has already 

been achieved. 

In those instances in which OI has opened an investigation (which will prompt OI to 

request an interview with the individual who was purportedly discriminated against), the 

initial ARB should assign an action to the OI investigator to ask the affected individual if 

he/she would like to be kept apprised of NRC’s progress in reviewing the matter. If the 

affected individual responds affirmatively, OI will inform the OAC so that the individual 

will receive a letter acknowledging his/her interest in being provided feedback about 

NRC’s review, status letters approximately every 6 months thereafter, and a closure 

letter when the NRC evaluation is completed. If the affected individual requests that 

NRC not pursue an investigation of his/her discrimination concern, the staff may initiate 

action to close the concern. In this instance, closure documentation to the affected 

individual, if it is requested, should indicate that NRC is closing the concern based on 

the affected individual’s desire not to participate in an OI investigation, but that NRC 

would open a new allegation concern in the future if the affected individual reconsiders 

pursuit of the discrimination matter. 

3.2.d Processing Allegations Received in Letters to the Commission or the EDO 

3.2.d.1 Allegations Received by the Commission or the EDO 

Staff in the Office of the Secretary of the Commission (SECY) and the Office of the 

Executive Director for Operations (OEDO) may receive an allegation addressed to the 

Commission, the EDO, or a deputy executive director. The SECY/EDO staff receiving 

the allegation shall place a blue “Warning - Sensitive Allegation Material” cover sheet 

(NRC Form 762) on top of the document to alert recipients that the package involves an 

allegation. The SECY/EDO staff should alert responsible action office management or 

OE (if unsure of the responsible action office) of the receipt of an allegation by the senior 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

36

NRC official. Since alleger identity protection is a consideration in such instances, the 

SECY/EDO staff should refrain from including or making reference to the received 

documentation in any information provided either externally (e.g., publicly in the Agency 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), on the NRC public website) or 

internally (e.g., Commission E-Reader, EDO Daily Notes) to the NRC staff. 

3.2.d.2 Actions When Allegation-Related Information in SECY/EDO Ticketed 

Correspondence is Not Initially Recognized as an Allegation 

If a regional or headquarters office recognizes that ticketed correspondence distributed 

by SECY or EDO contains an allegation that was not identified before the ticketed 

correspondence was sent to regional or headquarters office personnel, the regional or 

headquarters office must promptly notify SECY or EDO staff so that the internally 

distributed documents can be recalled and information can be retracted from any 

electronic locations where it is being maintained in a manner contrary to SUNSI 

guidance (e.g., ADAMS). NRC Form 762 cover sheets will be placed on the packages 

before redistribution. If the documentation was placed in ADAMS for a period of time, 

the responsible action office should inform the alleger about the period of time that the 

information was made publicly available and the potential that the information could have 

been accessed by individuals external to the NRC during that time frame. 

3.2.d.3 SECY/EDO Retention of Allegation-Related Documentation 

It is noted that for tracking purposes, SECY and EDO maintain copies of incoming 

allegation information that was sent directly to the Chairman, the Commissioners, or the 

EDO. The allegation records retained by SECY/EDO are to be treated on a strictly 

need-to-know basis and handling and control of the records will be in accordance with 

MD 8.8, this Manual, and applicable SUNSI guidance. 

3.2.d.4 Allegation Correspondence/Closure Documentation Involving 

SECY/EDO Ticketed Correspondence 

A common question in such cases involves whether to provide separate responses to 

the allegation and to the letter that the alleger initially sent to the Chairman, a 

Commissioner or the EDO. Generally, if one letter can be written that is responsive to 

both the allegation concern(s) and to points made in the alleger's letter to the Chairman, 

a Commissioner or the EDO, that action is preferable to writing two letters containing 

repetitive information. This can be best accomplished if the SECY/EDO agree that the 

signature of the Chairman/Commissioner/EDO/Deputy Executive Director for Operations 

(DEDO) on the response is not necessary, and that the signature authority can be 

delegated to those who would normally sign allegation-related correspondence or 

others, as designated. 

In some cases, the Chairman/Commissioner/EDO/DEDO will indicate that he/she 

prefers to sign correspondence acknowledging and/or closing the allegation. In that 

instance, additional coordination is required to assure that appropriate correspondence 

is developed. If a letter to be signed by the Chairman/Commissioner/EDO/DEDO can be 

written so that it addresses all allegation process correspondence requirements in terms 

of content, then only one letter should be sent. However, if the 

Chairman/Commissioner/EDO/DEDO does not wish to include in his/her 

correspondence all of the information normally provided in allegation process 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

37

correspondence (e.g., identity protection information, DOL information, ADR offer (if 

appropriate)), additional correspondence would need to be sent to the alleger containing 

the necessary information about the allegation program. 

Regarding the timeliness of response to allegations contained in letters to the Chairman, 

a Commissioner or the EDO, the best scenario is to capture the issue in the allegation 

program as soon as possible and gain acceptance from SECY/EDO staff that it is 

acceptable to provide feedback in accordance with the existing allegation program 

timeliness goals for acknowledgment, status, and closure letters. In all cases, since the 

date of allegation receipt is the date the allegation is received by the Chairman, a 

Commissioner or the EDO, it is important to maintain all documentation related to the 

ticketed correspondence in the allegation file so that any issues related to response 

timeliness or letter content are clearly explained. 

Internal distribution of the response to ticketed correspondence (i.e., to close the ticket) 

that also involves an allegation should be limited (e.g., SECY, EDO, and others with a 

need-to-know) and the information provided should be redacted to exclude allegeridentifying information. The AAA or an OAC should be consulted regarding the 

appropriate individuals or offices to be placed on distribution. 

3.2.e Processing Allegations Received by the OIG 

The guidance in MD 8.8 and this Manual applies to all NRC employees except employees of 

OIG. However, it is recognized that OIG does occasionally receive issues (usually via the 

OIG Hotline) that should be characterized and processed as allegations. While the OIG 

Hotline (1-800-233-3497) is intended for use as a means for individuals to report 

misconduct, waste, fraud, and potential wrongdoing on the part of NRC employees or NRC 

contractors, some individuals use the OIG Hotline to report items that are not under OIG 

purview, including allegations. OIG may also receive allegations electronically through a 

common portal on the OIG portion of the external NRC website at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/insp-gen/complaint.html

OIG has internal procedures in place to ensure that allegations received by that office are 

transferred to the technical staff for processing. When OIG receives an issue that it feels 

may constitute an allegation, OIG will forward the issue to staff in OE responsible for 

allegation program oversight. OE then forwards the allegation information to the appropriate 

regional or headquarters office for processing in accordance with MD 8.8 and this Manual. 

In transferring these matters to the technical staff, OIG may occasionally request that the 

staff inform OIG as to the final disposition of the allegation. 

Manual Section 5.1.a.2 discusses the establishment of the allegation receipt date for 

allegations transferred to the technical staff by OIG. 

3.2.f Receipt of Allegations by Electronic Mail 

3.2.f.1 NRC Actions in Response to an Allegation Received by E-Mail 

If an allegation is submitted via e-mail and the alleger does not object to being contacted 

again by NRC, the OAC or designated staff shall inform the alleger via telephone or e-
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

38

mail response that he/she will be contacted again by NRC, normally within 30 days, 

either by letter, e-mail, telephone, or a personal visit, as agreed upon, at which time the 

NRC will acknowledge its receipt and understanding of the alleger’s concerns. If a 

postal address is provided in the initial e-mail, or is ultimately obtained through additional 

contacts with the alleger, standard allegation process written correspondence 

(acknowledgment, status, and closure letters) is the preferred means of interaction with 

the alleger. All contacts with the alleger should be documented in the allegation file. 

When an allegation is received via e-mail and the e-mail does not include a phone 

number and/or a postal address, it is acceptable to correspond with an alleger via e-mail, 

provided the alleger has confirmed by phone, e-mail, or other means that he/she 

authored the e-mail and requests that NRC correspond with him/her via e-mail. For this 

circumstance, a sample e-mail response is provided in Manual Section 3.2.f.2 below. If 

the alleger does not confirm to the receiving office that he/she submitted the allegation, 

the allegation source should be entered into the AMS as “anonymous.” If the alleger’s 

initial e-mail message includes a phone number and/or a postal address, and the alleger 

does not indicate an objection to being contacted again by the NRC, it is not necessary 

to include the precautionary wording about internet security noted in Manual Section 

3.2.f.2 in an e-mail response to the alleger. 

3.2.f.2 Response to Allegations Received by E-Mail When Other Contact 

Information is Not Available 

When an allegation is received via e-mail and the e-mail does not include a phone 

number and/or a postal address, the following language should be used in the initial email response: 

"The NRC is in receipt of your e-mail dated _____. We are reviewing the information 

that you provided to determine what NRC follow-up activities will be conducted. If you 

would like the NRC to provide you with the results of our review, please contact (the 

appropriate Office Allegation Coordinator) at 1-800-xxx-xxxx. If you prefer a response 

via e-mail, you may confirm that preference by contacting us by telephone, responding 

to this e-mail, or other means (facsimile, etc.). Please be advised that we cannot protect 

the information during transmission on the Internet and there is the possibility that 

someone else could read our response while it is in transmission to you. If you do not 

confirm your desire to communicate via the Internet by contacting us by telephone or 

responding to this e-mail, we will not transmit any additional information to you via the 

Internet. 

The NRC brochure “Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC” contains information that 

you may find helpful in understanding our process for review of safety concerns. It 

includes an important discussion of our identity protection procedures and limitations. 

The brochure can be found on the NRC public web site at the following link: 

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

3.2.f.3 Suggested Format of Allegation Correspondence Provided by E-Mail 

For allegers requesting contact via e-mail, in order to promote consistency of allegation 

process correspondence, it is suggested that acknowledgment, status and closure 

letters be prepared as prescribed for written allegation program correspondence, and 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

39

then included as an attachment to the e-mail message to the alleger. 

3.2.f.4 Handling E-mail Request to Verify Information at an Alternate 

Website 

On occasion, an allegation received by e-mail will provide a link to an alternate website 

and indicate that certain information (such as a signature) may be verified by clicking on 

the link. The receiving employee should not click on the link, due to the potential that the 

link may contain computer malware. In such instances, the NRC Computer Security 

Office (CSO) should be contacted at CS_IRT@nrc.gov and informed about the request 

in the alleger’s e-mail. Do not forward the e-mail to CS_IRT@nrc.gov until subsequently 

requested to do so by CSO. CSO will determine whether the alleger’s e-mail and its 

attachments are free of malware and whether the link can be opened. 

3.2.g Allegations Received via the NRC Public Website 

3.2.g.1 NRC Public Website Points of Contact 

Allegations and other concerns may be submitted directly to NRC at the following e-mail 

address: allegation@nrc.gov. The web link containing this e-mail address is located on 

the public portion of the NRC website at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/safety-concern.html

In addition to receiving allegations via allegation@nrc.gov, and via the OIG portion of the 

NRC public website as discussed in Manual Section 3.2.e., other potential allegation 

information may be submitted to the NRC public website via comment/question entry 

forms that are monitored by various NRC offices. These web contact links are located at 

the following web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/contactus/contact-pages.html

3.2.g.2 Providing Allegations Received on the NRC Public Website to the 

Responsible Action Office 

Concerns received via the allegation@nrc.gov e-mail address are monitored by OE staff 

and forwarded to the appropriate regional or headquarters office for processing as 

allegations or other issues, as appropriate. If allegation staff in OE are not available to 

monitor the e-mail received at allegation@nrc.gov, OE will solicit the support of other 

regional and headquarters office allegation staff who have been given rights to view the 

incoming information on allegation@nrc.gov by e-mail proxy. E-mails forwarded from 

allegation@nrc.gov should be included as attachments rather than within a forwarded 

message. This will allow the action office to respond directly to the alleger’s original email message. Concerns received by other NRC program offices via other 

comment/question entry forms on the NRC external website are monitored by the 

headquarters offices responsible for those subject matter areas and dispositioned 

accordingly, including the forwarding of potential allegation issues to OE or to the 

affected regional or headquarters office. Once an allegation received in this manner is 

forwarded to the proper action office, it is to be handled as described in Manual Section 

3.2.f., “Receipt of Allegations by Electronic Mail.”
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

40

3.2.h Handling Allegations That May Impact Licensing or Certification Decisions 

or Allegations That Are Filed Late 

3.2.h.1 “Late-Filed” Allegations

Ideally, all substantiated allegations concerning a particular licensing, or certification or 

operational matter will be satisfactorily resolved by the applicant licensee before any 

license or certificate is issued or operational decision is made. If allegation concerns 

having a potential safety significant impact are material to on the safety of a facility relate 

to the staff’s findings for pending licensing or certification such decisions, these 

allegation concerns are termed “late-filed” and must be evaluated by the NRC and, if 

substantiated, resolved by the applicant licensee before the NRC can issue a license or 

certificate or approve operation. The NRC’s evaluation applicant’s resolution of less 

significant allegation concerns will be evaluated independent of the issuance of the 

license or certificate or operational decision. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.P.1, as modified 

by AGM 2011-001) 

If it appears that the volume of open allegations may prevent their full consideration 

because of the time frame of the licensing or certification schedule or operational 

decision, the action office will screen the allegations for safety significance and assign 

priorities to the allegations that must be resolved before the licensing or certification 

action can be taken or operational decision can be made. The following screening 

criteria are to be considered: 

- The likelihood that the allegation is correct, taking into consideration the knowledge, 

experience, and expertise of the alleger and the extent of credible contrary 

information or lack thereof, 

- The significance and materiality of the allegation, if current, and 

- The need for prompt consideration of the allegation because of significant or 

immediate safety concerns and public interest in avoiding undue delay. 

3.2.h.2 Notifications regarding “Late-Filed” Allegations

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 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 or other appropriate entity of the allegation concerns. Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) notification to the licensing or certifying office, if 

warranted. The licensing or certifying office will consult with OGC on preparation of the 

ASLBP when preparing such notifications. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.P.2, as modified by 

AGM 2011-001)

The action office will determine whether the allegation involves a matter previously 

considered during the course of the facility’s licensing, certification, or resumption of 

operation review or during an evaluation of prior allegations. If found to contain 

information new and potentially material to the licensing or certification decision or to a 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

41

decision to resume operation, the allegation will be further evaluated by the action office. 

Documentation of the action office’s conclusions should focus only on whether the 

allegations provide new information that is material to the licensing or certification 

decision or to a decision to resume operation. The bases for the action office’s 

determination and conclusions on the late-filed allegations must be documented at the 

time the staff reaches these conclusions. 

3.2.h.3 Assessment of Safety Significance of “Late-Filed” Allegations 

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

forward to the appropriate licensing or certifying organization not less than 30 working 

days before the license or certificate issuance date, using the applicant's estimate, an 

evaluation of the safety significance of all allegation concerns not scheduled to be 

resolved by the licensee before the NRC issues the license or certificate or makes the 

operational decision license or certificate issuance date. When possible, this 

assessment will be forwarded to the responsible office This evaluation will include a 

recommendation as to whether any or all of the allegations constitute grounds for 

delaying issuance of (or otherwise restricting) a license or certificate. For power reactors, 

a similar report will be prepared and forwarded to NRR or NRO 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). a 

Commission decision authorizing license issuance. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.P.3, as 

modified by AGM 2011-001) 

3.2.h.4 Determining the Resolution of a Substantiated Material Allegation 

As indicated in Manual Section 3.2.h.1, allegations that are significant and material to 

the staff’s findings for a pending licensing, certification, or operational decision must be 

evaluated by the NRC and, if substantiated, resolved before the NRC can issue the 

license or certificate or approve operations. If the NRC determines the incoming 

allegation to be significant and material, then the staff should expedite efforts to 

determine whether the allegation itself is true or, if such a determination cannot be made 

quickly, the likelihood that the allegation is true, considering the knowledge, experience, 

and expertise of the alleger, the knowledge of the NRC staff members familiar with the 

matter in question, and the extent of credible information contributing or contrary to the 

allegation assertion. If the staff determines either that the allegation has been 

substantiated or that the likelihood the allegation will be substantiated is high, the staff 

must render a conclusion about the corrective actions planned and taken to resolve the 

inadequacy or potential inadequacies identified. If the staff determines that the 

allegation concern, if not fully corrected, would have potential immediate impact on 

public health and safety, then it should render a conclusion that the corrective actions 

must be completed and that the pending agency decision will be delayed until the 

corrective actions are completed. If the allegation is significant and material to the 

pending agency decision but the completion of corrective actions does not have an 

immediate impact on public health and safety, the staff must evaluate the proposed 

corrective actions to determine whether they will appropriately resolve the substantiated 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

42

allegation concern, whether extent-of-condition has been appropriately considered, and 

whether the estimated times for completion of the corrective actions are reasonable and 

commensurate with the safety significance of the concern. If the staff determines the 

corrective actions proposed or in progress to be acceptable, the staff may conclude that 

the NRC may issue the license or certificate or that operations may resume without 

restriction. Otherwise, it may be appropriate to consider attaching a restricting condition 

to the license or certificate or to impose an operational restriction. 

3.2.i Allegations Provided to the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer (HOO) 

3.2.i.1 Receipt of Allegation-Related Calls by the HOO 

Occasionally, the NRC Headquarters Operations Center at 301-816-5100 will be 

contacted by an alleger, either directly or when a call to an OAC via the NRC Safety 

Hotline (1-800-695-7403) is transferred to the HOO. The NRC Safety Hotline 

automatically transfers calls to the HOO after hours or during office hours when the OAC 

does not answer the phone. Since telephone calls to the NRC Headquarters Operations 

Center are recorded, the HOO will send an electronic version of the recorded telephone 

call (.wav file) to the responsible action office OAC and to allegation program staff in

OE. This usually occurs within 24 hours of the HOO’s receipt of the telephone call. 

3.2.i.2 Processing Allegation-Related Information Received by the HOO 

The OAC listens to the telephone call recorded by the HOO, documents pertinent 

information (e.g., caller identifying/contact information, affected facility information, the 

caller’s stated concerns, comments, or opinions, etc.), and processes the issue(s) as 

appropriate. If the issue(s) provided by the caller represent(s) an allegation, the OAC 

will initiate appropriate allegation receipt documentation and either enter the allegation 

into the AMS database, or transfer it to an appropriate regional or headquarters office, if 

the HOO initially forwarded the call information to the incorrect regional or headquarters 

office. 

3.2.i.3 Re-Contacting the Alleger to Obtain Additional Information Related 

to HOO Calls 

If additional information is needed to clarify the allegation concern(s), the OAC or other 

assigned staff will re-contact the alleger to obtain the additional information, as would be 

done with any received allegation lacking specific information. 

3.2.i.4 Handling Non-Allegation Issues Received by the HOO 

If the issues discussed by the caller do not represent an allegation, the receiving OAC 

will forward the information as appropriate. If forwarded internal to NRC, the office to 

which the information is forwarded will be responsible for any additional correspondence 

with the caller. If the entity to which the information is to be referred is external to NRC 

(e.g., State agency, another federal agency, local law enforcement) the OAC, or other 

assigned staff, should facilitate the provision of information to the caller that will enable 

the caller to contact the external entity. NRC may also consider forwarding the 

information directly to the external entity, if the issue appears to involve an imminent 

threat to public health and safety or otherwise be of significant concern. If this path is 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

43

chosen, NRC should make every effort to inform the caller that such a referral was 

made. 

It is noted that .wav files forwarded by the HOO constitute working files for NRC 

recordkeeping purposes and therefore should be summarized or transcribed as 

appropriate. After the allegation is summarized or transcribed, it is not necessary to 

retain an electronic copy of the .wav file. 

3.2.i.5 Allegation Calls to the HOO During Normal Work Hours 

If an alleger calls the HOO during normal work hours when it is known that the 

associated regional/headquarters office is open and functioning (e.g., not closed due to 

weather conditions), the HOO will attempt to call the responsible OAC and transfer the 

call. If the OAC is not reachable, the HOO will take the allegation and forward the 

recorded telephone call to the responsible action office OAC and the allegation program 

staff in OE as indicated in Manual Section 3.2.i.1. 

3.2.j Allegations Provided by Media Personnel or Identified in Media Outlets 

3.2.j.1 Allegations in the Media 

It is not NRC practice to monitor the news media or internet for allegations. However, if 

NRC is made aware of potential allegation information in the media either through direct 

contact with a member of the media, or through NRC staff identification of a potential 

allegation in information provided by the media (e.g., in a newspaper, on the radio, on 

the Internet), the information should be processed as an allegation. This Manual section 

describes items to be considered in determining whether to treat a news reporter or 

other media outlet representative as an alleger, whether to treat the actual source of the 

information (if known) as the alleger, or whether to treat the issue as an allegation 

without a specific source. 

When an NRC staff member identifies a concern in the media that meets the definition of 

an allegation, it is often difficult to determine the source of the information and who, if 

anyone, should receive correspondence related to the allegation. In these instances, the 

allegation may initially be treated as not having a specific source, unless the NRC 

requires additional information and seeks out and identifies the information source. The 

primary areas to consider in determining how to evaluate such an allegation and whether 

or not correspondence will be provided involve: a) how the information is received; b) 

how much is known about the source of the information; and c) the level of detail in the 

information provided. 

3.2.j.2 Information Received Directly from Media Personnel 

Reporters contacting the NRC will have varying amounts of information related to an

allegation, depending on how the reporter was made aware of the concern, how much 

detail about the concern was provided to or has been gathered by the reporter, and the 

current status of the reporter’s investigation. The reporter may indicate that he/she is 

preparing an article, that he/she is ready to publish an article, that an article has already 

been published, or that he/she is simply looking for facts related to a concern involving 

an NRC-regulated facility. As a general rule, an NRC Public Affairs representative 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

44

should be involved in all contacts with news media personnel. If correspondence with a 

reporter is necessitated, an NRC Public Affairs representative should either develop or 

be on concurrence for the correspondence. 

With regard to the source of the information, the reporter may indicate that the 

information was provided by a known individual, that it was provided by a known, but 

confidential source, that it was provided anonymously, or that it is the result of the 

reporter’s own research. Regarding the level of detail provided by the reporter, the 

information will either be of sufficient detail for NRC staff to evaluate the concern, or will 

lack sufficient detail to enable the NRC to do an informed review, such that NRC review 

without additional information would be difficult or is not possible. 

If the reporter provides information that meets the definition of an allegation, is of 

sufficient detail to enable NRC evaluation, and comes from an anonymous or 

confidential source or by way of the reporter’s own research, the normal allegation 

process should be followed, including correspondence with the reporter as the alleger. If 

the reporter does not supply information in sufficient detail to enable an NRC evaluation, 

an NRC Public Affairs representative should re-contact the reporter and ask for more 

detail, with support from the technical staff. If sufficient additional detail is provided to 

enable an informed NRC review as a result of this additional contact with the reporter, 

the staff should evaluate the allegation, as appropriate. If sufficient additional detail is 

not provided, the NRC Public Affairs representative may inform the reporter that NRC 

has insufficient information to enable a review, and intends to provide no further 

feedback. In this instance, the allegation would then be closed based on a lack of 

sufficient detail.

While it is unlikely that the reporter would provide the name of an unnamed or 

confidential source, the reporter should be informed that it is NRC’s preference to 

discuss the concern directly with the information source, if possible. If the reporter 

refuses to provide NRC with the name of an unnamed or confidential source, NRC may 

suggest the type of additional information that is being sought and ask the reporter if 

he/she would be willing to contact the unnamed or confidential source to obtain the 

additional information. If the reporter initially provides the name of his/her source, or 

provides the name of a confidential source in response to an NRC request, NRC staff 

should attempt to locate/contact the named source and ask if he/she would like to 

receive correspondence from the NRC. If this occurs, the NRC Public Affairs 

representative should be asked to inform the reporter that it is the NRC’s preference to 

deal directly with the source of the information, but that the reporter may be informed of 

the results of NRC’s evaluation at the completion of our review, if this is acceptable to 

the named source. If the named source cannot be located/contacted, allegation 

correspondence should be provided to the reporter. 

If NRC is successful in contacting the named source and is able to obtain sufficient 

information from the named source to enable NRC review, the normal allegation process 

should be followed, with the named source as the alleger. If the named source does not 

provide sufficient detail to enable an informed NRC review, the allegation may be closed 

based on a lack of sufficient detail. 

3.2.j.3 Information Identified in Media Outlets 

If an NRC staff member is made aware of a potential allegation through review of 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

45

information on a media outlet (e.g., TV, radio, newspaper article, Internet blog), if 

sufficient detail is provided to enable an informed NRC review, and if the name of the 

actual source of the information is not provided, the information may be treated as not 

having a specific source (i.e., “anonymous”) and processed accordingly. However, if 

initially, or at any time during the evaluation of the allegation, the NRC staff believes it is 

necessary to obtain additional detail related to the allegation concern either to initiate or 

to further its evaluation, an attempt should be made to contact the media outlet to obtain 

additional information. For example, if a print article included the name of a reporter, 

NRC staff may choose to request an NRC Public Affairs representative (with NRC 

technical staff support) to contact the reporter with questions. If additional detail is 

provided to enable NRC to initiate a review or continue an ongoing review, the reporter 

should be asked if he/she wants correspondence from the NRC. If so, allegation 

process correspondence should then be developed, with the reporter as the alleger. 

Since the concern was provided in a media article, the reporter should be informed that 

NRC will not be able to protect his/her identity as the source of the concern. If additional 

specific information cannot be obtained from the reporter, the reporter should be 

informed that there is insufficient information for NRC review, and that the NRC intends 

to provide no further feedback. In this instance, the allegation would be closed based on 

a lack of sufficient detail. 

If the media report/article/blog indicated that the information was provided by an 

unnamed or confidential source, and the NRC staff believes it is necessary to make an 

effort to contact the actual source of the information, the staff should attempt to obtain 

contact information from the media outlet. If appropriate, NRC staff may choose to 

request the support of an NRC Public Affairs representative in obtaining this information. 

If the media outlet contact agrees to provide the name of the information source, NRC 

staff should attempt to locate/contact the named source and ask if he/she would like to 

receive allegation correspondence from the NRC. If this occurs, the media outlet contact 

should be informed that it is the NRC’s preference to deal directly with the source of the 

information, but that the media outlet contact may be informed of the results of NRC’s 

evaluation at the completion of our review, if this is acceptable to the named source. 

If the media outlet contact refuses to provide NRC with the name of an unnamed or 

confidential source, NRC may suggest the type of additional information that is being 

sought and ask the media outlet contact if he/she would be willing to contact the 

unnamed or confidential source to obtain the additional information. If the name of the 

information source is ultimately provided and if NRC is successful in contacting the 

named source and obtaining sufficient information to enable an informed NRC review, 

the normal allegation process should be followed, with the named source as the alleger. 

If the named source does not provide additional detail or if the named source cannot be 

located/contacted, NRC may either continue with its evaluation of the allegation based 

on available information or close the allegation based on a lack of sufficient detail. It is 

noted that OI also has the authority to obtain information through the issuance of a 

subpoena. 

If the information identified on the media outlet contains the name of the information 

source, responsible NRC staff will attempt to contact/locate the named source and ask if 

he/she wants NRC correspondence. If NRC is able to contact the named source, and 

the named source confirms that he/she is the information source, the named source will 

be established as the alleger and allegation process correspondence should be 

developed accordingly. Since the concern and the source's name were provided in a 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

46

media article, the named source should be informed that NRC will not be able to protect 

his/her identity as the source of the concern. 

If the named source cannot be contacted, the concern(s) should be treated as an 

anonymous allegation and processed in that manner. If responsible NRC staff 

determine that additional information is needed in order to pursue the allegation but are 

unsuccessful in contacting the named source, the media outlet should be contacted in 

an effort to obtain contact information for the named source. If the media outlet cannot 

provide contact information for the named source but provides sufficient additional detail 

to enable an informed NRC review, the media outlet representative should be asked if 

he/she wants correspondence from the NRC, and if so, the staff will develop allegation 

process correspondence, with the media outlet representative as the alleger. 

If the media outlet representative does not want correspondence, NRC may document 

allegation closure via a memorandum to the allegation file. If the media outlet 

representative cannot provide contact information for the named source, and cannot 

provide sufficient additional detail to enable an informed NRC review, the media outlet 

representative should be informed that there is insufficient information for NRC review, 

and that the NRC intends to provide no further feedback. 

3.2.k Allegations Provided by State, Local, or Other Federal Government 

Officials 

This section provides guidance as to whether correspondence should be provided to State, 

Local, or other Federal Government officials, acting in their official capacity, who provide 

allegation information to the NRC. This section also addresses the content of allegation 

process correspondence to these individuals, if written feedback from NRC is requested. 

3.2.k.1 Determining Whether Written Feedback to a State, Local, or Federal 

Government Official is Necessary 

When a State, Local, or other Federal Government official, acting in their official 

capacity, provides allegation information to NRC, the action office OAC or other 

assigned staff should contact the official to determine if he/she wants correspondence 

from the NRC regarding the referred information. In many situations, these officials will 

request no additional feedback from NRC, indicating that the matter being referred to 

NRC is outside of the other agency’s regulatory jurisdiction, and as such, that additional 

feedback from NRC is unnecessary. If feedback is not requested, NRC will honor that 

request and process the allegation without providing additional feedback to the State, 

Local, or other Federal Government official. However, the NRC may re-contact the 

official at any time to discuss the matter if it is determined that additional information is 

needed. 

If the official requests feedback from the NRC, the contacting NRC staff member will 

ascertain the preferred means of contact. Often, the official will request a courtesy 

telephone call or an e-mail from NRC after the matter is closed as opposed to written 

correspondence. If the official requests written feedback, the contacting NRC staff 

member should ascertain if the official would like to receive periodic feedback, as 

established by the normal allegation process, or if a letter from NRC after the matter is 

closed is sufficient. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

47

3.2.k.2 Content of Written Correspondence to State, Local, or Federal 

Government Official 

Regarding the content of written correspondence to State, Local, and other Federal 

Government officials in these circumstances, since these individuals are providing this 

information to NRC while acting in their official capacity, it is not appropriate to include 

the standard NRC allegation process discussion about alleger identity protection or filing 

a discrimination complaint. These individuals are not seeking identity protection from or 

discretion by NRC, nor do they have any interest in filing a discrimination complaint. It is 

acceptable to write abbreviated correspondence to these individuals, omitting much of 

the standard allegation process correspondence “boiler-plate.” However, if the State, 

Local, or other Federal Government official indicates that the information being 

forwarded to NRC was provided to their agency by another individual, the 

correspondence to the official should emphasize that it is NRC policy to protect the 

identities of individuals who raise safety concerns, where appropriate and possible, to 

preclude retaliation by employers or stigmatization by coworkers or members of the 

public, and that the official’s cooperation is needed in recognizing that sensitivity.

3.2.l Allegations Raised in an NRC Public Meeting 

3.2.l.1 Public Meeting Definition 

An NRC public meeting is a planned, formal encounter open to public observation 

between one or more NRC staff members and one or more external stakeholders 

physically present at a single meeting site, with the expressed intent of discussing 

substantive issues that are directly associated with the NRC's regulatory and safety 

responsibilities. The term “public meeting'' is traditionally associated with the 

Commission's efforts to provide information to the public and to seek public views on 

various generic and site-specific issues. These meetings are open to a wide variety of 

individuals with an interest in the subject matter and a willingness to follow the ground 

rules established for the conduct of the meeting. [This discussion is not intended to refer 

to “hearings'' associated with adjudicatory proceedings under the Commission's Rules of 

Practice in 10 CFR Part 2. The term “hearing” relates primarily to Commission 

adjudicatory proceedings on various types of licenses and licensing actions (e.g., initial 

issuance of a license, amendment of an existing license, renewal of a license). Specific 

requirements regarding participation in and the conduct of hearings are provided in 10 

CFR Part 2.] 

3.2.l.2 Receipt of an Allegation During a Public Meeting 

On occasion, an allegation will be received during an NRC public meeting. If the 

allegation is received in a private conversation between the concerned individual and an 

NRC staff member, the allegation will be processed per standard practice, with the 

alleger being afforded standard allegation process identity protection. More often 

however, a concern raised at an NRC public meeting is presented in an open forum, 

where all of the meeting attendees are made aware of the concern because the 

concerned individual provides his/her concern verbally. The concerned individual may 

or may not give his/her name when providing the concern. If a concern received in this 

manner is determined to be an allegation, and the alleger provided his/her name when 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

48

stating the concern, the alleger should be informed by NRC (in a separate, private 

conversation) that while NRC will attempt to protect the alleger’s identity with regard to 

the concerns raised, to the extent possible, doing so may be difficult since the 

concern(s) was/were presented in an open forum. If the alleger did not provide his/her 

name when stating the concern, he/she may assert during this separate, private 

conversation with NRC, that since he/she did not associate his/her name with the 

concern, and knew no one else attending the meeting, identity protection can be 

achieved. NRC will consider the alleger’s input and other circumstances relating to how 

the concern was presented at the meeting, on a case-by-case basis, in its efforts to 

protect the alleger’s identity.

If a concern is submitted in writing as a comment or question which is then read aloud to 

all of the meeting attendees by a meeting proctor, and the concern is determined to be 

an allegation, the alleger will be afforded standard allegation process identity protection, 

provided the alleger’s identity has not been divulged to the meeting attendees. [Note: 

Because of the increased potential for allegation receipt at a public meeting, NRC staff 

attending a public meeting should refrain from providing information associating an 

alleger with a stated concern to the extent possible, unless meeting ground rules are 

such that an individual is required to identify himself/herself as the source of a comment 

or concern, regardless of whether it is provided verbally or in writing.] 

3.2.l.3 Considering Wider Distribution of the Response to an Allegation 

Raised During a Public Meeting 

Since such allegations are raised publicly, the ARB will consider the possibility of a wider 

distribution for the response to the allegation. The ARB should make this decision in 

coordination with the AAA and after discussion with the alleger, considering the 

circumstances under which the concern was raised and whether the needs of the 

agency and the public are better served by making the response public. If the ARB 

determines that a wider distribution of the response to the allegation is appropriate (e.g., 

by posting the response in ADAMS, discussing it in a press release, including it in the 

“For the Record” page on NRC's public website, discussing it in a blog on the NRC 

public website, adding a section to an NRC inspection report, etc.), the alleger is to be 

informed of NRC’s intent to do so. Additionally, the document effecting public 

distribution of the allegation response should not include the alleger’s name or any other 

identifying information. To ensure that such action does not lead the public to assume 

that all allegation concerns are or will be made public, the document shall clearly 

indicate the reason for discussing the allegation publicly, including allowances made by 

the alleger, and must highlight that this course of action is not standard. A record of the 

discussion with the alleger regarding more public dissemination of the allegation-related 

activities shall be documented in the allegation file. The ARB shall consider any 

objections raised by the alleger. 

If the alleger expresses an objection to public distribution of the allegation response, the 

objection should be considered by responsible staff and the ARB. However, given the 

public manner in which the allegation was provided, responsible staff and the ARB may 

proceed with wider distribution of the allegation response, if it is determined that the 

needs of the agency and the public outweigh the alleger’s objection.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

49

3.2.m 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions and Allegations Forwarded to Staff via the 10 CFR 

2.206 Petition Process

3.2.m.1 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions 

Section 2.206 under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B (hereafter referred to as “2.206”) 

indicates that any person may file a request to institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for any other action as may be proper. 

The request must specify the action requested and set forth the facts that constitute the 

basis for the request. The EDO will assign the request to a responsible NRC 

headquarters office director for appropriate action. Within a reasonable time after the 

request has been received, the assigned headquarters office director will either institute 

the requested proceeding or provide a written response to the person who made the 

request indicating that no proceeding will be instituted in whole or in part, with respect to 

the request, and the reasons for the decision. 

3.2.m.2 Acceptance/Rejection Criteria for 2.206 Petition Processing 

Although 2.206 petitions have attributes of an allegation (i.e., they are assertions of 

impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activity), concerns that are 

ultimately processed under 2.206 are not processed as allegations since they are being 

addressed in a separate, formal, public process. Guidance for submitting 2.206 petitions 

is provided in MD 8.11, “Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions,” and on the NRC 

public website at: http:/www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/enforcement/petition.html#submit2206. Part III, Section (C), “Criteria for 

Petition Evaluation,” of the MD 8.11 Handbook provides useful guidance with regard to 

whether a submitted concern will be accepted or rejected for 2.206 processing. 

As noted above, not all items that are submitted as 2.206 petition requests are ultimately 

processed under 10 CFR 2.206. For this reason, staff should be aware of the attributes 

of items that would be rejected for 2.206 processing so that such issues are not 

forwarded. The following points pertain: 

 10 CFR 2.206 indicates that a petition must be filed either by hand delivery, mail,

telegram, e-mail, or on a compact disc. MD 8.11 specifically indicates that a 2.206

petition is a written request.

 10 CFR 2.206 specifies that the request must be addressed to the EDO.

 If an individual calls and makes a 2.206-like request, provides specific supporting

facts, and is not concerned about identity protection, but the submitted issue does

not meet the definition of an allegation, the individual should be informed about the

2.206 process and it should be suggested that he/she submit the potential 2.206

concern in writing to the EDO.

 Since an anonymous caller cannot be re-contacted to suggest that he/she submit an

apparent 2.206 petition in writing, or to provide any subsequent feedback to the

caller about the concern, anonymous concerns should not be submitted to the 2.206

process. Additionally, if in the initial processing of a potential 2.206 petition, a

petitioner whose identity is known does not agree to the issue being made public and
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

50

the disclosure of his/her identity, the petitioner is to be informed that the 2.206 

process cannot provide identity protection and that the concern will be forwarded to 

another process for review (e.g., the allegation process). 

 If a petition contains information regarding alleged wrongdoing, the wrongdoing issue

(or relevant part of the petition, if only part of the petition involves alleged

wrongdoing) will be processed as an allegation. If the 2.206 request containing the

alleged wrongdoing concern has already been made public in ADAMS, the alleger

should be provided feedback that the NRC will not be able to protect his/her identity

as the source of the wrongdoing allegation.

 A 2.206 request must specify the action requested and set forth the specific facts

supporting the request for NRC to take enforcement-related action. Unsupported

assertions of safety problems or general opposition to nuclear power are not

considered sufficient grounds for action under 2.206. MD 8.11 indicates that such

general requests will be treated either as allegations or routine correspondence.

This item is particularly relevant to situations involving natural phenomena and their 

affect on operating reactors (examples, plants potentially affected by the path of an 

oncoming hurricane, plants affected by the 2011 Midwest flooding events). In such 

situations, the agency will receive multiple contacts from external sources requesting 

that NRC take action to shut down the reactors that are affected or may be affected 

by the event. In a large majority of these contacts, the concerned individual is not 

asserting a specific safety problem, but a concern that the natural phenomenon may 

cause a safety problem. In most cases, these matters would not be processed as 

2.206 petitions or as allegations. The concerned individual should be informed that 

the NRC is aware of the ongoing situation, that preparatory and compensatory 

actions are being taken in response to the event, and that NRC is continuing to 

follow the licensee’s actions. If one or more of the reactor facilities affected by the 

event has already been shut down, the concerned individual can be so informed. 

Since the majority of such matters will not be processed as allegations, it is not

imperative that the OAC be the point of contact for the concerned individual. In fact, 

for situations in which multiple contacts are being received to the extent that 

involving allegation program staff would adversely affect their ability to implement the 

allegation program, consideration should be given to soliciting support from other 

regional or headquarters staff (e.g., responsible technical staff, OPA/Regional Public 

Affairs representatives). 

3.2.m.3 Concerns Forwarded to the Staff After Rejection from 2.206 Process 

In those instances when the assigned program office director advises the requestor that 

no 2.206 proceeding will be instituted regarding a particular concern, the concern is 

forwarded to the staff for processing, as appropriate. If such a concern meets the 

definition of an allegation, it shall be entered into the allegation process by the 

appropriate action office. The concern is not considered an allegation until after the 

requestor has received formal feedback from NRC indicating that his/her concern will not 

be evaluated under the 2.206 process. If a concern that is not processed under 2.206 is 

determined to be an allegation, the allegation receipt date shall be the date of the letter 

informing the petitioner (now alleger) that the matter is not being evaluated under 2.206. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

51

3.2.m.4 Identity Protection Considerations for Processing Allegation 

Concerns Related to Matters Rejected by the 2.206 Process 

When a concern is forwarded to the allegation process after being rejected by the 2.206 

process, the alleger should normally be provided feedback that the NRC will not be able 

to protect his/her identity with regard to the allegation, since the concern was initially 

raised and responded to in a public manner. This assumes that the incoming 2.206 

petition request and/or the agency’s response to that request have already been placed 

in ADAMS. If this documentation has not been placed in ADAMS, it would be 

acceptable in such circumstances to continue with efforts to protect the alleger’s identity.

3.2.m.5 Closure of an Allegation Later Submitted to and Accepted for 

Processing Under 2.206 

If an alleger submits a 10 CFR 2.206 petition concerning the same issue(s) as his/her 

previously submitted allegation, and the issue is accepted for evaluation under 10 CFR 

2.206, the concerned individual is to be informed that the pending allegation will be 

closed and that the concern(s) will be evaluated and responded to pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.206. 

3.2.m.6 2.206 Petition Related to a Similar or Identical Existing Allegation –

Exclusion from Closure Timeliness Metrics 

If a 10 CFR 2.206 petition is submitted on a matter similar or identical to an existing 

allegation and is ultimately accepted for 2.206 processing, the NRC will normally not be 

able to respond to the alleger for the previous allegation until evaluation of the related 10 

CFR 2.206 petition is completed. For this reason, such an allegation would not be 

subject to allegation process closure timeliness metrics. 

3.2.n Allegation-Related Information Requests from and Outreach to Members of 

Congress or State Officials 

3.2.n.1 Responding to Requests for Allegation-Related Information from 

Members of Congress or State Officials 

NRC is occasionally asked to provide information regarding allegations that may involve 

a constituent of a member of Congress or a State official. NRC generally is responsive 

to this type of request, although it is also important that the Congressman/Senator or 

State official is made aware of the fact that the information being provided is sensitive 

allegation-related material and warrants sensitive handling, including measures to 

protect the identity of the alleger, as appropriate. Further, in some circumstances the 

agency may seek to work with the requester to find mutually acceptable ways of 

providing investigatory information without compromising the independence of the 

agency's investigation efforts. 

The following language should be used in all responses to members of Congress or 

State officials when the subject of their request concerns information related to an 

allegation: "Please also note that this information is being evaluated in our allegation 

program and identifies an alleger. NRC policy requires us to protect an alleger's identity 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

52

with regard to the concern raised to the extent possible. This policy helps to assure all 

individuals who may wish to report safety concerns to NRC that they may do so without 

being unnecessarily subjected to adverse consequences that might follow their being 

publicly identified as the source of the concerns. We request your assistance in 

recognizing the sensitivity of this information by protecting the alleger’s identity, including 

their job title and other identifying information." 

The development of such correspondence should be coordinated with the Office of 

Congressional Affairs (OCA) and/or NRC State liaison personnel. 

3.2.n.2 Considering Outreach to Members of Congress or State Officials 

NRC will, on rare occasion, receive a request from a Member of Congress or a State 

official to be kept informed about allegation-related activities that are pertinent to the 

missions of both the NRC and the interested party. When such requests are made, they 

are often in response to allegation-related matters that receive substantial public 

interest, such as the Peach Bottom inattentive security officer concerns that received 

considerable public attention in 2007-2008. If such a request is received, the 

responsible office should initiate efforts (with the support of the Office of Congressional 

Affairs and/or NRC State liaison personnel) to better understand the request and 

establish agreement as to what type of information is to be shared, how it is to be 

shared, and the time frame within which the information is to be shared. Since such 

action is not typical to standard allegation program policy related to the release of 

allegation-related information, it is suggested that the ground rules for such an 

agreement be established via a meeting or conference call with the interested party to 

specifically identify the type of information and level of detail the NRC will provide and to 

ensure that the sensitivity of allegation-related information is emphasized to those who 

will receive the information. 

The terms of such an agreement will be determined on a case-by-case basis, as the 

type and amount of information requested will differ in each case. For reference 

purposes, the following list provides the criteria that were established for one such 

agreement: 

 maintain open and prompt communication channels

 NRC will inform (the State) of substantiated concerns that impact public health and

safety and (State) functions that respond to such concerns

 NRC will promptly inform (the State) of an item of immediate safety significance, or if

substantiated, could impact offsite emergency response or be of high safety

significance

 NRC will inform (the State) if NRC has indication that an issue is to become public

 (the State) will treat sensitive information in an appropriate manner

 (the State) will inform NRC of any planned response to information provided by the

NRC before (the State) makes the response public

Such agreements are to be confirmed in writing, usually via a letter from the responsible 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

53

Regional Administrator or Office Director to the Senator/Congressman or State official.

3.2.o Inspections Requested and Potential Violations Raised per 10 CFR 19.16(a) 

and 10 CFR 19.15(b) 

3.2.o.1 Processing Requests Under 10 CFR 19.16(a) and 10 CFR 19.15(b) as 

Allegations 

Since a request for an inspection pursuant to 10 CFR 19.16(a) or a potential violation 

raised under 10 CFR 19.15(b) involves an asserted impropriety or inadequacy 

associated with radiological working conditions, and since 10 CFR 19.15 and 10 CFR 

19.16 include no provision for providing feedback to the concerned individual, such 

matters should be documented as allegations and tracked accordingly. Whether or not 

the alleger’s identity is to be protected in these instances depends on whether or not the 

alleger has requested that his/her name and the name of other individuals appear in the 

information provided to the licensee or on any record published, released or made 

available by the Commission (see Manual Section 4.2.). 

3.2.o.2 10 CFR 19.16 – Requests by Workers for Inspection 

10 CFR 19.16(a) provides guidance by which workers may request NRC inspections 

when they believe that a violation exists or has occurred in licensed activities with regard 

to radiological working conditions. Specifically, the request must be provided in writing 

to the NRC Regional Administrator, or to an NRC inspector, and provide the specific 

grounds for the request, and shall be signed by the worker or a worker representative. 

Prior to performing the inspection, the NRC will provide the licensee with a copy of the 

request, with the worker’s name redacted, if so requested.

3.2.o.3 10 CFR 19.15 – Consultation with Workers during Inspections 

10 CFR 19.15(b) indicates that during the course of an inspection, any worker may 

privately bring to the attention of the inspector, either orally or in writing, any past or 

present condition which he/she has reason to believe may have contributed to or caused 

any violation of NRC requirements, or any unnecessary exposure of an individual to 

radiation from licensed radioactive material under the licensee’s control. Any such 

notice in writing shall comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 19.16(a). 

The qualifier “privately” indicates that it is acceptable for a worker to inform the NRC 

about a concern without first reporting the concern to the licensee. Both 10 CFR 

19.15(b) and 10 CFR 19.16(a) support the conclusion that not all written concerns 

brought to NRC inspectors must be provided to the licensee. However, the actions 

taken by NRC to notify the licensee under 10 CFR 19.16(a) are applicable to radiological 

working condition concerns received in writing from workers under 10 CFR 19.15(b). 

3.2.p Allegations Related to the Distribution of Products Containing Exempt 

Quantities of Byproduct Material 

3.2.p.1 Exempt Distribution and Possession Licenses - Background 

Consumer products containing byproduct and source material that are used by the 

general public are exempted from licensing requirements only if NRC determines that 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

54

the products or types of uses do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the common 

defense or security or to public health and safety and the environment. Radiation safety 

features are built into the sealed source or device and the amount of radioactive material 

that can initially be distributed in such a device is restricted. 10 CFR Part 30 exempts 

members of the public from the requirements for an NRC license when they receive, 

possess, use, transfer, own, or acquire byproduct material in products such as silicon 

chips, electron tubes, check sources, gun sights, and smoke detectors. NRC applies its 

regulatory control to the manufacturing and transfer of these products, with specific 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 32. 

Generally, distribution of byproduct material to persons exempt from regulatory authority 

(the general public) can only be made by persons who have a specific license from NRC 

authorizing the distribution of their products to persons exempt from the requirements for 

an NRC license. Manufacturers and distributors of these products must be licensed in 

order to initially transfer or distribute them to persons exempt from licensing. The 

licensed distributor is required to satisfy NRC that all products are manufactured, tested, 

and distributed in accordance with the regulations and specifications provided in its 

license application. These specific licenses are issued by NMSS and are referred to as 

"exempt distribution" or "E" licenses. 

Exempt distribution licenses only authorize the product(s) to be distributed to persons 

exempt from licensing and generally do not authorize possession or use of radioactive 

material by the distributor. Persons who manufacture, process, produce or initially 

transfer for sale products containing byproduct material must meet the general 

requirements of 10 CFR 30.33 for possession and use of licensed material on Federal 

property, in an Agreement State, or in any State subject to NRC jurisdiction. They must 

also be authorized under specific license for the possession and use of byproduct 

material. Therefore, applicants for exempt distribution licenses may need to file a 

separate application for a specific license authorizing possession and use of byproduct 

material, incident to distribution, with the NRC Regional Office or Agreement State for 

the State in which the material will be possessed and/or used. An exempt distribution 

license cannot be issued until the applicant obtains a possession and use license. 

3.2.p.2 Processing Allegations Related to Exempt Distribution and 

Possession License Issues 

3.2.p.2(a) NRC Responsibilities Related to Exempt Distribution and 

Possession License Issues 

NRC has received a number of concerns regarding the alleged unauthorized sale of 

products containing exempt quantities of byproduct material by retailers that do not 

retain appropriate exempt distribution and/or possession licenses. When allegations 

of this type are received, questions often arise as to which NRC action office should 

retain oversight responsibility for processing the allegation, since responsibility for 

certain regulatory actions related to exempt distribution and/or possession licenses 

lie with different NRC offices. As indicated in Manual Section 3.2.p.1 above, NMSS 

retains responsibility for the issuance of licenses in this area. NMSS is also 

responsible for the development of rulemaking and for the issuance of generic 

guidance and correspondence to inform appropriate stakeholders of clarifications in 

or changes to NRC regulatory oversight in this area. However, since NMSS does 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

55

not retain substantive inspection resources, any specific NRC inspection activity 

needed to evaluate an asserted concern in this area, for the most part, is 

accomplished by specialist inspectors in the Regional Offices. If such inspection 

activity results in the issuance of violations and/or the consideration of escalated 

enforcement action, the Regional Office conducting the inspection would issue the 

violation(s) and/or pursue escalated enforcement. 

3.2.p.2(b) Determining the Action Office for an Exempt DistributionRelated Allegation 

For the reasons described in Manual Section 3.2.p.2(a) above, the action office for a 

particular allegation related to exempt distribution and possession license issues will 

be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the issue(s)-in-question, the 

number of retailers involved in the alleged unauthorized activity, the location of the 

retailers, the need for NRC inspection activity, and the possibility that the outcome of 

the NRC evaluation will have generic application and/or prompt the development of 

NRC generic communication. As an example, if an allegation is received that a 

product is being sold without an exempt distribution license at two specific retail 

locations in geographic area of one NRC region, and the obvious NRC follow up 

action is to perform an inspection, it is appropriate in this instance for the allegation 

to be assigned to the affected regional office to pursue the matter via inspection. 

However, if an allegation is received that a nationwide retailer is selling a product 

without an appropriate exempt distribution license, NMSS would be the action office 

for such an allegation, likely soliciting the regional offices for any needed inspection 

support. Additionally, it is noted that NMSS will coordinate all allegations related to 

the sale of e-license/e-distribution-related products on the Internet. The AAA should 

be consulted if an agreement cannot be reached between NMSS and affected 

regional offices as to the action office for the allegation. If an issue of this type is 

being coordinated by a regional office, the regional OAC will notify the NMSS OAC 

so that NMSS can monitor/trend the volume and type of e-license/e-distribution 

allegations being received by the agency. 

3.2.p.2(c) Sale of Products Containing Exempt Quantities of Byproduct 

Material by Foreign Vendors 

Another related issue has involved the sale of products containing exempt quantities 

of byproduct material by foreign vendors. If a foreign vendor retains a corporate 

entity in the U.S., NRC may pursue follow up action regarding the allegation with the 

designated U.S. location of the vendor. However, there have been a number of 

issues brought to the attention of the NRC related to foreign vendors with no specific 

tie to a U.S. corporate entity. NRC has discussed this matter internally and at this 

point in time, has determined that individual U.S. consumers will not be requested to 

obtain possession licenses in these instances and also that the safety significance of 

the individual circumstances does not appear to warrant the pursuit of actions 

against the foreign companies (e.g., notifying them of the NRC licensing 

requirements, requesting that distribution to U.S. consumers be stopped, pursuit of 

restrictions with U.S. Customs). Notwithstanding, the fact remains that the purchase 

of products containing exempt quantities of byproduct material by consumers in the 

U.S. from entities that do not hold licenses from NRC to distribute the products is a 

concern related to NRC-regulated activity. Therefore, concerns regarding such 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

56

issues should continue to be processed as allegations and discussed with the Office 

of International Programs, even though the NRC’s ability to take action against the 

foreign vendor may be limited. Cataloging such issues in the AMS database will 

allow NRC staff to retain a record of such occurrences, should NRC decide to pursue 

more restrictive actions further in the future. 

3.2.q Receipt of Additional Concerns from the Same Alleger Before NRC 

Evaluation 

3.2.q.1 Receipt/Acknowledgment of Additional Concerns from the Same 

Alleger 

If a regional or headquarters office receives additional allegation concerns from the 

same alleger before the NRC evaluation is conducted, and the new concerns can be 

included in the planned evaluation, the regional or program office should (not must) 

include the new concern(s) in the existing allegation file. If new concerns are received 

that cannot be accommodated in the planned evaluation or if the concerns are received 

after the evaluation has been conducted, a new allegation must be opened. If it is 

possible to include the new concerns in an existing allegation, the ARB should be 

reconvened to discuss the new concerns and the receipt of the new concerns must be 

acknowledged in a subsequent letter to the alleger, preferably within 30 days of the 

receipt of the new concerns. This will ensure that the staff understands the concerns 

and that the alleger is made aware of NRC’s acknowledgment of the new concerns. 

3.2.q.2 Additional Concerns Identified in an Alleger's Interview Transcript 

The requirement to acknowledge new concerns also applies in instances when the staff 

identifies new concerns through the review of a transcript of an interview with the alleger. 

After the technical staff has summarized the new concern(s) derived from the review of 

the transcript, the regional or program office should (not must) include the new 

concern(s) in the existing allegation file if the new concern(s) can be included in the 

planned evaluation of technical concerns contained within the allegation. If evaluation of 

the new concerns cannot be accommodated in the planned evaluation or if the concerns 

are received after the evaluation has been conducted, a new allegation file must be 

opened. See Manual Section 3.2.s for additional discussion regarding allegations 

identified within an OI interview transcript and designation of the allegation receipt date. 

3.2.r Allegations that are “Vague” or Lack Sufficient Detail to Enable NRC 

Evaluation 

Occasionally, an allegation for which additional information cannot be obtained (e.g., 

anonymous alleger, attempts to contact the alleger are unsuccessful, alleger indicates after 

being contacted by NRC that he/she has no additional information to provide, alleger 

refuses to provide additional information) may be too general or “vague” and lack sufficient 

detail to enable NRC evaluation. Nonetheless, as long the information provided meets the 

definition of an allegation as prescribed in the Manual Glossary, the allegation should be 

documented so that it may be pursued at a later time if additional clarifying information is 

obtained. The fact that an allegation is “vague” or lacks detail should not be used as a 

justification to exclude the allegation from the process. If the ARB determines that an 

allegation cannot be pursued because it lacks detail, the allegation should be closed either 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

57

via a letter to the alleger or a closure memorandum to the allegation file (if the allegation is 

anonymous or if subsequent contact with the alleger is not possible) indicating the additional 

detail that would be necessary to enable an NRC evaluation. 

3.2.s Identification of Allegations by OI Staff or from OI Interview Transcript 

Review - Determination of Allegation Receipt Date 

OI keeps independent records regarding the investigations it conducts, including records 

related to confidential sources recruited by OI. If during an investigation, OI identifies any 

records or other information regarding safety issues that meet the definition of an allegation, 

OI is to document the allegation and promptly provide the information to the responsible 

OAC for processing, within 5 calendar days of recognizing the allegation. 

On occasion, the OI investigator may interpret new allegation information provided by the 

alleger or another investigation witness as amplifying evidence in support of the previous 

assertion of wrongdoing/discrimination, as opposed to a new allegation. In such instances, 

the new allegation may not be recognized until the interview transcript is subsequently 

reviewed by a member of the technical staff. These circumstances will be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis to determine the date of receipt of the allegation. If responsible 

technical staff and the OAC acknowledge that the new allegation information is closely 

associated with the matter being investigated such that it may have been difficult for the OI 

investigator to interpret the information as a new allegation, the allegation receipt date may 

be established as the date the technical staff reviewed the interview transcript. However, if 

it is obvious to responsible technical staff and the OAC that the new allegation concern(s) is 

not/were not associated with the wrongdoing/discrimination issue being investigated (i.e., 

and should have been recognized by the OI investigator as a new allegation), or if a 

member of the technical staff accompanied the OI investigator on the interview, the 

interview date will be established as the date of allegation receipt. If responsible staff and 

the OAC cannot agree on the allegation receipt date, the AAA should be consulted. In all 

cases, the new allegation should be documented and promptly provided to the responsible 

OAC so that allegation processing may begin. The letter to the alleger acknowledging the 

new allegation concern(s) should note the date of the OI interview but clarify that the 

allegation was identified as a result of subsequent technical staff review. 

3.2.t Processing Allegations Related to Combined License (COL) Applicants 

The following discussion provides direction as to how allegations related to COL applicants 

(new reactors) are to be handled: 

3.2.t.1 Starting Point for COL Applicant Allegation Processing 

NRC will begin accepting allegations related to a COL applicant when the application is 

tendered. It is not appropriate to wait until after the COL application is docketed (i.e., 

after the COL application completeness and technical sufficiency reviews by NRC have 

been completed) to begin processing allegations. 

Since requesting feedback from the applicant/prospective licensee regarding allegation 

concerns is an option occasionally employed as part of the evaluation of an allegation, 

before the COL application letter is submitted, the individual within the applicant’s 

organization to whom such issues are to be provided should be determined through 

discussion between the applicant and the NRC (possibilities: senior site manager, 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

58

licensing manager, Employee Concerns Program (ECP) manager (if an ECP exists)). 

3.2.t.2 Rejected COL Application - Treatment of “Allegation-Like” Issues 

Provided to NRC While the COL Application is Rejected and Before 

Application Re-submittal 

During the time frame after a COL application has been rejected and before it is resubmitted, “allegation-like” issues should be documented by the staff and logged into 

AMS so that the issues are retained for an historical perspective and for future 

reference, if needed, during the subsequent NRC review of the resubmitted COL 

application. During this time frame, issues that occur in the “rejected” time frame will be 

characterized in the AMS database as “non-allegations.” However, allegation program 

alleger identity protection provisions will be applied to the concerned individual. 

Furthermore, these items should be documented and brought to the ARB by the 

responsible action office for discussion and also so that the ARB may consider providing 

the information to the prospective applicant, if appropriate. If the concerned individual 

objects to the NRC providing the information to the prospective applicant, it would have 

to be reaffirmed to the individual that NRC's regulatory oversight at this point is limited 

and that other than recording the information and informing NRC staff who would be 

involved in a re-submitted COL application review, there is likely no other specific action 

the NRC would be able to take at the time. 

It is noted that there is a possibility that issues could be received in the “rejected” time 

frame that NRC might be able to pursue, such as discriminatory actions that occurred 

after the application was tendered and before it was rejected. Issues of this type should 

be discussed with OGC and/or Regional Counsel on a case-by-case basis to determine 

if NRC has jurisdiction. 

3.2.t.3 Responsible NRC Offices for Allegation Issues Related to COL 

Applicants 

Allegations related to COL applicants will be processed by either NRO or Region II 

depending on the subject matter of the allegation, as indicated below: 

- NRO for generic allegation issues related to COL application reviews 

- NRO for allegation issues related to the site-specific COL application reviews 

- NRO for vendor issues, onsite or offsite. If, in the future, RII provides “resident 

inspectors” to certain vendor facilities that will provide parts/components/assemblies 

to multiple facilities under construction, RII would process allegation matters related 

to the specific vendor facility, with technical support from NRO. 

- RII for site-specific construction inspection allegation matters 

- RII for allegation issues related to onsite activities conducted by licensee personnel, 

contractors, and subcontractors 

- NRO and RII will share oversight of allegation matters related to activities performed 

offsite by contractors or subcontractors. Offsite activities performed by contractors or 

subcontractors for site-specific purposes will be handled by RII. Offsite activities 

performed by contractors or subcontractors that involve generic COL application 

issues will be handled by NRO. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

59

3.2.t.4 Processing Allegations at a Co-Located Site

A co-located site is one that has both a facility under construction and an existing 

operating facility or facilities. Responsibility for allegation processing is to be assigned 

as follows: 

- If the allegation/concerns solely affect the plant under construction, the allegation 

should be assigned to Region II or NRO, as indicated in Manual Section 3.2.t.3. 

- If the allegation/concerns solely affect the operating plant(s), the allegation should be 

assigned to the regional office with oversight for the operating plant(s). 

- If the allegation has multiple concerns and the concerns can be distinctly separated 

between those that affect the operating plant(s) and those that affect the construction 

site, two allegation files should be opened, one operating plant allegation assigned to 

the regional office with oversight for the operating plant(s), and one construction site 

allegation assigned to Region II or NRO, as indicated in Manual Section 3.2.t.3. 

- If an allegation/concern truly affects all of the facilities at the site to an equal degree 

(e.g., a SCWE concern that is asserted to affect all facilities, and company SCWE 

policy is the same for all personnel at both the operating facility and the construction 

facility), then the allegation concern should be handled as one allegation and 

assigned to the regional office with oversight for the operating plant(s). 

In each of these situations, mechanisms should be established within the agency to 

assure that regional offices with oversight for co-located operating plant(s) are kept 

informed of allegation activity related to the co-located construction site, and conversely 

that Region II and/or NRO with oversight responsibility for the co-located construction 

site are kept informed of allegation activity related to the co-located operating site. 

Additionally, in discussing allegation matters related to either the construction side or the 

operating side of a co-located facility, the ARB may conclude that a concern, while not 

specifically asserted by the alleger, could affect the alternate side (e.g., the ARB may 

conclude that a concern about the operating plant may also affect the construction site). 

In these situations, how the action office follows up on the “alternate side” aspect of the 

allegation, including proposed follow up actions, may be discussed at the ARB or other 

routine meetings held by responsible action office staff (e.g., Should additional 

inspection activity be performed to look at the matter on the alternate side of the site?). 

However, unless the matter involves potential wrongdoing, this “alternate side” aspect 

should not be attributed to the alleger, or treated as an additional allegation concern, and 

need not be tracked via AMS, as such effort would not be in response to an alleger’s 

assertion. If the “alternate side” aspect involves a potential wrongdoing matter and an 

OI investigation is prompted by the ARB, a separate “NRC staff-suspected” wrongdoing 

allegation should be opened to track the matter. 

3.2.t.5 Applying the Allegation Process to COL Applicant Contractors, 

Subcontractors, and Vendors 

As long as the contractor, subcontractor, or vendor retains a corporate entity in the U.S, 

existing NRC allegation process guidance will apply. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

60

3.2.t.6 Applying of the Allegation Process to COL Issues Related to Foreign 

Vendors 

Issues that meet the NRC definition of an allegation, regardless of the involved party 

(including foreign vendors) are to be categorized as allegations. However, NRC followup action may be limited due to complications related to agreements and interactions 

with the foreign country. For example, if a foreign vendor is discovered via investigation 

to be providing fraudulent components or component assemblies, the options for NRC 

enforcement action may be limited if the foreign vendor does not retain a corporate entity 

in the U.S. However, NRC may consider other actions, such as the issuance of NRC 

generic correspondence providing detail about the results of the investigation. 

Regarding matters of alleged discrimination, it is likely that NRC employee protection 

statutes will not apply to employees in foreign countries. Therefore, an offer of Early 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (Early ADR) or the initiation of an OI investigation will not 

be options in this instance. Since NRC will be unable to determine, based solely on the 

facts supplied by the concerned individual, whether the individual was discriminated 

against, a suggestion could be made to the concerned individual to contact a 

whistleblower protection office within their country, if one exists. If interaction with the 

foreign country is a consideration as part of the evaluation of the allegation, the Office of 

International Programs (OIP) should be consulted. 

3.2.t.7 Concerns Related to the COL Review 

If NRC review of a particular COL licensing issue has not been initiated or completed, 

and NRC receives an assertion that there are problems that should be explored by NRC 

(e.g., an assertion that an Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria 

(ITAAC) item will not be met), such assertions are normally not entered into the 

allegation process. Rather, the concerned individual should receive correspondence, 

external to the allegation process, thanking him/her for providing the clarifying 

information about the licensing issue, and indicating that the NRC will consider the 

information supplied by the concerned individual in the agency’s technical review. Such 

issues should be tracked in a retrievable manner by the responsible NRC office (e.g., via 

a Yellow Ticket) to allow a more specific response to the concerned individual, if one is 

requested. For example, the concerned individual may be informed that the results of 

the NRC review will be issued publicly at a later time via the Safety Evaluation Report 

(SER) or Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). However, if the stated assertion 

involves potential wrongdoing (e.g., that the applicant lied to the NRC or intentionally 

provided incomplete and inaccurate information), an allegation file should be opened 

with regard to the wrongdoing aspect of the concern. 

If NRC review of a particular licensing issue has been completed, and NRC receives an 

assertion that there are problems with the issue that should be explored by NRC, an 

allegation file should be opened to evaluate the matter, regardless of whether 

wrongdoing has been asserted. 

3.2.t.8 Expectations for CAP and SCWE Programs in Construction 

Organizations 

The ability to identify conditions adverse to quality applies to reactor construction sites 

as well as to operating reactor facilities. It is presumed that a primary CAP will be in 

place that is equivalent to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B CAP at operating plants. In 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

61

order for a CAP to work efficiently and effectively, the NRC expects licensees to promote 

a SCWE at their operating facilities. It is expected that similar policy will be applied to 

the work force at a reactor construction site. 

3.2.u “Non-Allegations”

3.2.u.1 What is a non-allegation? 

There is no threshold in the NRC allegation process for the acceptance of a concern that 

meets the NRC’s definition of an “allegation.” (8.8 Handbook, Section I.B.1) However, 

information, questions, or concerns submitted for consideration by the allegation process 

that do not meet the NRC’s definition of an allegation should not be processed as 

allegations. These items are commonly referred to as “non-allegations.” This 

interpretation is made by comparing the information provided to the three basic criteria 

that constitute an NRC allegation: 

-- Does the information involve an asserted inadequacy or impropriety? 

-- Is the issue associated in some way with NRC-regulated activity? 

-- Is NRC already aware of the validity of the concern? 

This interpretation is usually made as the receiving NRC employee consults with his/her 

supervisor and the OAC while documenting the information provided by a concerned 

individual. If, after this initial consultation, it is unclear whether information provided by 

the concerned individual constitutes an allegation, it is appropriate to discuss the 

information at an ARB in an effort to obtain a decision. If the ARB cannot reach a 

conclusion as to whether the concern-in-question should be processed as an allegation, 

the AAA should be consulted. Some regions/offices assign an allegation number to 

such issues and then re-code the item in the AMS database as a “non-allegation” if the 

ARB determines that the issue is not an allegation. Some regions/offices document the 

issue on allegation process forms, but withhold assigning an allegation number until the 

ARB has reached a conclusion. Either approach is acceptable. 

On occasion, an NRC employee will receive a concern he/she believes is an allegation 

but does not realize that the matter has already been evaluated by the NRC and that 

other NRC staff members are aware of the validity of the concern, and/or that the 

concern is not associated with NRC-regulated activity (i.e., is not an allegation). After 

such items are provided to the OAC, the determination as to whether the concern should 

or should not be processed as an allegation should be made quickly after the date of 

receipt by the agency so that feedback can be provided to the concerned individual by 

NRC staff aware of the disposition of the concern. Prompt determination of the issue as 

a non-allegation will also preclude the possibility of challenging allegation program 

timeliness metrics if, for example, it is determined after additional NRC review that the 

validity of the concern is not known and that the concern is associated with NRCregulated activity (i.e., that the concern should be processed as an allegation). 

If the incoming item is clearly not an allegation, the OAC has the authority to provide it to 

the appropriate organization within or external to the agency for appropriate 

action/response. In most cases, items that are ultimately determined not to be 

allegations need to be forwarded appropriately so that feedback can be provided. Often 

such items are forwarded to a responsible regional or headquarters office, sometimes to 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

62

OPA (i.e., when the incoming item is a general question about what NRC does that 

would normally not be answered by another NRC office), and sometimes the OAC will 

take the initiative to answer the issue because the response is simple and requires the 

provision of a small amount of information, an address, or a phone number (for example, 

when an individual raises a discrimination concern based on sex, or race, or age, the 

OAC can provide the individual with contact information for the Equal Employment 

Opportunities Commission (EEOC)). 

When providing feedback to a concerned individual in response to a non-allegation, it is 

normally not necessary to explain why the issue is not an allegation, or to make a 

declarative statement like.... "NRC determined that this was not an allegation." In most 

instances, the concerned individual is only interested in a response to his/her concern, 

not a discussion as to why his/her concern was not addressed by a specific NRC 

process. As an example, if a concern is raised about age discrimination, the concerned 

individual should be provided contact information for EEOC. It is not relevant to the 

concerned individual that the matter will not be addressed by NRC's Allegation Program. 

In the infrequent instances when a concerned individual insists that a non-allegation be 

processed by NRC as an allegation, it may be appropriate to provide an explanation as 

to why the NRC is not evaluating the matter as an allegation (see Manual Section 

3.2.u.9). 

Also, there will be rare occasions when no NRC feedback is necessary in response to a 

“non-allegation.” For example, if an individual copies NRC along with multiple other 

federal agencies and/or other organizations on an issue that has nothing to do with 

NRC, it is acceptable to make a decision that no NRC response is needed. If the 

responsible office has questions about whether or not a response should be provided to 

a specific non-allegation issue, the AAA may be consulted. 

3.2.u.2 MD 8.8 Exclusions to the Allegation Definition 

The “allegation” definition provided in MD 8.8 and the Manual Glossary describes certain 

circumstances that are not to be characterized as NRC allegations, specifically: 

o Technical questions generated by NRC staff. (NRC staff members should direct

technical concerns to NRC management for evaluation within appropriate processes

(e.g., inspection program, safety evaluation). If an NRC staff member disagrees with

the agency’s disposition of an issue, alternate paths exist to which the staff member

may make known his/her disagreement (open door policy, non-concurrence process,

differing professional opinion program)).

o Inadequacies provided to NRC staff by licensee employees acting in their official

capacity. 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.

o Matters already entered into a licensee's CAP that are not otherwise accompanied

by an assertion of inadequate licensee follow up. Licensee CAPs provide the
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

63

primary mechanism for the identification and resolution of problems. Once an issue 

is entered into the CAP, 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 CAP was not or will 

not be handled properly by the licensee (preferably with specific examples of 

inadequate licensee corrective action), such an item should not be processed as an 

allegation.

o Matters being handled by other formal processes, such as petitions for rulemaking,

petitions filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 or contentions filed in hearings or

other formal proceedings

o Misconduct by NRC employees or NRC contractors

o Non-radiological occupational health and safety issues

o Concerns related to Agreement State licensee activities when the concerned

individual agrees to have his/her concerns and identity provided to the Agreement

State

o Performance or wrongdoing concerns regarding organizations or personnel from

State regulatory bodies that oversee Agreement State licensee activities

o Matters reported to NRC by Agreement States resulting from Agreement State

inspections or licensing activities that are forwarded to NRC as a matter of

conducting official business, and matters involving law enforcement and other

Government agencies.

3.2.u.3 NRC Staff-Identified Wrongdoing Issues Not Investigated by OI 

An NRC staff-identified potential wrongdoing issue that is not ultimately investigated by 

OI is not considered to be an allegation and should be reflected in AMS as a “nonallegation,” if the matter had already been entered into the AMS database. In these 

instances, the matter is returned to responsible technical staff for processing, as deemed 

appropriate, in accordance with established inspection and program review guidance 

(e.g., the Reactor Oversight Program). 

3.2.u.4 Proposed License/Certificate Changes or License/Certificate 

Application Issues 

If NRC review of a proposed license/certificate change or license/certificate application 

issue has not been initiated or completed, and NRC receives an assertion that there are 

problems that should be explored by NRC, such assertions are normally not entered into 

the allegation process. Rather, the concerned individual should receive 

correspondence, external to the allegation process, thanking him/her for providing the 

clarifying information about the issue, and indicating that the NRC will consider the 

concerned individual’s information in the NRC’s technical review. Such issues should be 

tracked in a retrievable manner by the responsible office (e.g., via a Yellow Ticket) to 

allow a more specific response to the concerned individual, if one is requested. For 

example, the concerned individual can be informed that the results of the NRC review 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

64

will be issued publicly at a later time via an appropriate document (e.g., SER or FEIS). 

Notwithstanding the above, if the stated assertion involves potential wrongdoing (e.g., 

that the party supplying the proposed license/certificate change or license/certificate 

application information lied to the NRC or intentionally provided incomplete and 

inaccurate information), an allegation should be opened with regard to the wrongdoing 

aspect of the concern. If NRC review of a proposed license/certificate change or 

license/certificate application issue has been completed, and NRC receives an assertion 

that there are problems with the issue that should be explored by NRC, an allegation file 

should be opened to evaluate the matter, regardless of whether wrongdoing has been 

asserted. 

3.2.u.5 Tracking DOL Proceedings Subsequent to a Discrimination Concern 

Settled in Early ADR 

If a discrimination concern is settled in Early ADR, NRC will not open an OI investigation 

or issue an enforcement action, nor will NRC’s disposition of the discrimination concern 

be altered by a subsequent DOL decision if the alleger had also filed the same 

discrimination concern with DOL/OSHA. The action office may leave the allegation file 

open awaiting the final DOL action; however, additional correspondence with the alleger 

regarding the discrimination concern is unnecessary since NRC's conclusion will not 

change. If the action office chooses to leave the allegation file open and continue 

corresponding with the alleger while the discrimination concern remains open in the DOL 

process, the correspondence shall provide no indication that the NRC's conclusion 

regarding the discrimination concern could change as a result of a subsequent positive 

DOL finding. 

It is also acceptable to close an allegation file when a discrimination concern has been 

settled via Early ADR with a related DOL case remaining open (as long as all other 

concerns in the allegation file are closed). If the action office chooses to close the 

allegation file in such instances, a new “non-allegation” is to be opened to track the 

ongoing DOL proceeding. The reason for tracking the DOL process at this point is 

because a subsequent DOL decision may conclude that the alleger was discriminated 

against, and Part II, Section 1.3.17 of the Enforcement Manual indicates that the NRC 

would at that time consider issuing a letter asking the licensee to describe the SCWE 

impacts resulting from the DOL finding of discrimination. This type of non-allegation is 

discussed in more detail in Manual Section 5.9.g.2. 

3.2.u.6 Use of AMS to Track “Non-Allegations”

Generally, concerns that do not meet the definition of an allegation should not be 

entered into the AMS database. However, if the action office prefers to enter such items 

into AMS to facilitate tracking of the feedback provided in response to these items, this is 

acceptable, provided the item is categorized in the AMS database as a ”non-allegation.” 

In fact, for an allegation with multiple concerns that contains a “non-allegation” concern, 

including all of the concerns in AMS may provide for better administrative control of 

actions to be taken and feedback to be provided by the action office. [Note: Records of 

concerns not entered in the AMS or “non-allegation” concerns entered into AMS should 

be maintained in accordance with office or regional procedures that apply to those 

matters.] 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

65

3.2.u.7 NRC Staff or Contractor Misconduct Issues Related to an 

Allegation 

3.2.u.7(a) Exclusion of OIG-Related Information from the AMS Database 

A singular concern about NRC staff or contractor misconduct (i.e., an OIG issue) 

should not be entered into the AMS database. However, if an allegation with multiple 

concerns also contains a concern involving an OIG issue, it is acceptable to include 

in AMS as a placeholder, a non-descript concern, categorized as a ”non-allegation,” 

called “OIG Item” for better administrative control of actions to be taken and 

feedback to be provided by the action office to the alleger. No specific information 

about the OIG item is to be entered into AMS. This serves as a reminder to the OAC 

to provide feedback to the alleger, via the acknowledgment letter or other agreed 

upon means of correspondence, regarding how the alleger may obtain information 

about the disposition of the OIG item, including the provision of contact information 

for OIG. 

3.2.u.7(b) Handling OIG Information Related to an Allegation 

If, while providing an allegation, the alleger also relays concerns regarding 

misconduct of NRC staff or NRC contractors, the OIG-related information should not 

be included in the allegation file. One means of accomplishing this is to sanitize a 

copy of the received allegation documentation to redact OIG-related issues and 

indicate on the copy that the missing information involves issues of alleged 

misconduct by NRC staff or contractors that have been provided to the appropriate 

SES manager and NRC legal representative (OGC or Regional Counsel) for referral 

to OIG. The sanitized copy of the allegation receipt documentation can then be 

placed in the allegation file. 

NRC staff or contractor misconduct issues shall not be discussed at the ARB (only 

the allegation concerns are to be discussed). Additionally, specific concerns 

regarding alleged misconduct by NRC staff or contractors will normally not be 

articulated in the acknowledgement letter to the alleger. The allegation staff should 

consult with the responsible SES manager and NRC legal representative regarding 

what information can be provided to the alleger in the acknowledgment letter 

regarding any alleged NRC misconduct issue. If the SES manager and NRC legal 

representative have already referred the matter to OIG, it may be appropriate to 

inform the concerned individual that such action has been taken. If the responsible 

SES manager and the NRC legal representative have reviewed the submitted 

assertion of misconduct by NRC staff or contractors and determined that referral to 

OIG is not warranted, the acknowledgement letter to the alleger can indicate that the 

concerns were received and that the concerned individual may contact OIG at 1-800-

233-3497 if he/she has any questions or other comments regarding NRC staff 

conduct. 

3.2.u.8 Exclusion of “Non-Allegation” Documentation from ADAMS

Correspondence with a concerned individual that deals only with non-allegation issues 

should not include allegation tracking numbers. However, such correspondence also 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

66

should normally not be put into ADAMS, as it is to be assumed that the concerned 

individual supplied the information to NRC with an expectation that the identity protection 

provisions afforded by the allegation process would be applicable. In this regard, it is 

appropriate to apply the allegation process identity protection provisions to the 

concerned individual in these instances because it is not necessary to make public the 

fact that an external source has provided information to the NRC, regardless of whether 

the information meets the definition of an allegation. Notwithstanding the above, if the 

concerned individual indicates that he/she is not concerned about the protection of 

his/her identity, or specifically requests that the NRC response be made public, it is 

acceptable to make the NRC response public and to also make it publicly available in 

ADAMS. 

3.2.u.9 Responding to a Concerned Individual’s Request that a “NonAllegation” Matter Be Processed as an Allegation

If a concerned individual insists that his/her concern be processed by NRC as an 

allegation, even though the concern does not meet the NRC’s definition of an allegation, 

the concerned individual should be informed as appropriate (e.g., via e-mail, via 

response letter, or via an allegation acknowledgment letter (if the concerned individual 

provided other concerns that met the NRC’s allegation definition)), that NRC determines 

whether a received issue is to be processed as an allegation. Sample language for 

informing a concerned individual that a particular concern is not being processed as an 

NRC allegation is provided below: 

“On a daily basis, NRC receives issues/concerns/comments/contentions, etc. from 

numerous individuals about various subjects that relate to NRC activities. Our goal is to 

respond to all of them, but our first task is to assign them to an appropriate process 

within the agency to enable a response. As examples, items submitted in accordance 

with 10 CFR 2.206 (a public petition to NRC to suspend, revoke, or modify a license) are 

responded to publicly under that process, contentions filed against the issuance of a 

reactor operating license or license renewal are responded to under another process. 

Items that do not meet the criteria specified by other formal NRC response processes, 

and that are not allegations, are provided to knowledgeable staff for response. 

For an issue to be processed as an NRC allegation, the NRC needs to determine that it 

meets our definition of an allegation, i.e. "an inadequacy or impropriety associated with 

NRC-regulated activity, the validity of which has not been established." It is important to 

ensure that only items that meet the NRC's definition of an allegation are placed in the 

allegation process, so that they may be acted upon efficiently, effectively, and 

responsively. Based upon our evaluation, it was determined that your issue did not meet 

the NRC's definition of an allegation, because it dealt with (.........), and (was not an 

inadequacy or impropriety associated with NRC-regulated activity) or (because NRC 

was already aware of the issue and is completing evaluation efforts related to it). 

Therefore, your question/comment will be responded to by staff knowledgeable of NRC's 

response efforts.”

3.2.u.10 Charging Work Time Related to “Non-Allegations”

Once it is clarified that information, questions, or concerns submitted for consideration 

by the allegation process are “non-allegations,” NRC staff should not subsequently 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

67

charge work time to allegation follow up effort. Time spent determining whether an issue 

was an allegation may be charged to allegation follow up effort. 

3.2.v Allegations Involving Multiple Allegers 

Occasionally, a group of individuals will raise an allegation to the NRC. Similarly, multiple 

individual allegers may raise the same allegation to the NRC on separate occasions but in 

the same relative time frame. These circumstances present questions as to how the 

allegation(s) should be administered in terms of how many allegations should be opened; 

and how many of the allegers should be provided correspondence related to the evaluation 

of the allegation. Such circumstances should be treated on a case-by-case basis depending 

on how the information was presented to the NRC, the outcome of the initial discussion 

between NRC staff receiving the allegation and the alleger(s), and the relative time frame 

within which the allegations were received (if the case involves the receipt of the same 

allegation from multiple individuals on separate occasions). The OAC, with ARB input (if 

necessary), should weigh the known facts about the allegation concern to determine how to 

evaluate it effectively and efficiently, while being appropriately responsive to those who are 

interested in the outcome of NRC’s follow up. Important items for the OAC (and the ARB) to 

consider are the allegation acknowledgment letter and initial ARB timeliness requirements, 

and the need to assure that the stated concerns are truly the same (i.e., if information 

presented by different allegers is similar, but not necessarily the same, a concern could be 

missed or inappropriately altered if responsible NRC staff group statements from multiple 

individuals together as one concern). 

3.2.v.1 Allegation Received from a Group 

If several individuals present an allegation concern to NRC in a group setting, it is often 

advantageous to summarize the concerns at the end of the discussion, as they are 

understood by NRC staff receiving the allegation, in an effort to gain acknowledgment 

from all of the concerned individuals attending the discussion regarding the allegation 

concerns in question. It may also be advantageous in this setting to establish a single 

point of contact from the group to whom allegation-related correspondence will be 

provided. 

3.2.v.2 Receiving the Same Allegation Concern from Multiple Individuals 

If the same allegation concern is received from different individuals at different times, it 

may be advantageous, from an administrative standpoint, to only open one allegation 

having multiple allegers. This will permit the OAC and responsible staff to track 

allegation evaluation activity and correspondence needs in one allegation file vs. multiple 

allegation files. This approach should normally only be applied if the allegations involve 

a specific technical matter and are received within a short time frame (e.g., within 1 or 2 

days). As an example, if a security guard is inattentive in a parked patrol vehicle, and 

within a day of the occurrence, multiple site employees have reported it to the NRC 

resident inspector, it would be acceptable to record the issue as one allegation with 

multiple allegers. However, if the time frame between submittal of the concerns is too 

long, the timeliness of allegation correspondence and actions related to later submittal(s) 

may be affected. For example, if the same concern is submitted multiple weeks after a 

concern is originally submitted, and before the NRC evaluation is conducted, it may be 

better to open a new allegation, to assure that acknowledgment letter and initial ARB 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

68

timeliness requirements are met for the more recent allegation. 

For discrimination or chilling effect/chilled work environment concerns, in most 

situations, it would not be appropriate to group multiple allegers into one allegation, 

since the number of concerns NRC receives related to chilled work environment and 

alleged discrimination provide insight into the SCWE at the facility. As an example, if 

three individuals informed the NRC that they were disciplined for raising the same safety 

concern and that their entire department was chilled as a result, it would be more 

appropriate to open three separate allegations that include a discrimination concern and 

a chilled work environment concern. 

It is always acceptable to open a separate allegation for each individual, if the action 

office determines that this is appropriate in order to evaluate the concerns provided. 

3.2.w Allegations Regarding the Inappropriate Sale of Radioactive Material on the 

Internet 

Allegations are occasionally received that involve an assertion that someone is 

inappropriately attempting to sell a product containing radioactive material on the internet. 

An NMSS staff member has been assigned to monitor the internet for such items, and for 

this reason, allegations in this area are forwarded to NMSS for processing. For issues of this 

type that involve Agreement States, the responsible RSAO is to be invited to related NMSS 

discussions, so that he/she is kept informed. 

3.2.x Discrimination Concerns Received/Processed by Other Authorities Prior to 

NRC

3.2.x.1 DOL Receipt of Discrimination Allegation Prior to NRC 

According to the MOU between NRC and DOL (see Manual Exhibit 7), DOL will promptly 

notify NRC of any complaint filed with DOL alleging discrimination within the scope of 

ERA Section 211, and will promptly provide NRC with a copy of the complaint. When 

NRC is notified by DOL that it is investigating a complaint of discrimination under ERA 

Section 211, and the alleger has not also brought his/her discrimination concern to NRC, 

the action office shall obtain a copy of the complaint from DOL (if DOL has not already 

provided it to the NRC), submit the DOL complaint for allegation processing, and contact 

the alleger to obtain clarification with regard to the alleger’s concern, including the 

technical concern(s) that provide(s) the basis for the claim of discrimination. The 

allegation receipt date will be the date the DOL complaint is received by NRC. 

3.2.x.2 NRC-Related Discrimination Concerns Processed by Other 

` Authorities 

An individual will occasionally file a claim of discrimination that is associated with NRCregulated activity with an external authority (e.g., a State whistleblower protection office, 

U.S. District Court, or the MSPB or OSC for Federal licensees). When NRC learns of 

the external authority’s review, the concern should be entered into the allegation 

process, with the date of allegation receipt being the date NRC was informed about the 

discrimination claim. If the external authority’s review has yet to be completed, NRC will 

process the discrimination claim as if it had just been received by NRC (i.e., ARB, prima 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

69

facie determination, Early ADR offer (if appropriate), OI investigation (if appropriate)). If 

the external authority has already substantiated discrimination related to matters 

associated with NRC-regulated activity, the concern will also be entered into the 

allegation process, with the date of allegation receipt being the date NRC was informed 

about the substantiated discrimination claim. In addition to processing the allegation, 

NRC will normally engage the licensee independently regarding potential SCWE impacts 

from the finding of discrimination (see Manual Section 5.2.j.2). 

3.2.y Considerations Regarding Concerns about Issues Already Under 

Inspection or Investigation 

Part of the criteria for determining whether an issue should be processed as an allegation 

includes determining whether the validity of the issue is known by the NRC. In general, if 

the concern involves current activities at an NRC-licensed facility, and NRC does not yet 

know if the stated concern is valid, the concern should be processed as an allegation. (This 

above statement is not intended to refer to a concern already captured in a licensee's CAP 

that remains under evaluation and is not accompanied by an assertion that it is not being 

adequately addressed by the licensee.) However, on a case-by-case basis, some 

circumstances may be presented involving matters for which NRC inspection/investigation is 

well in progress and/or near completion that may affect whether the issue should be 

considered by the allegation process, and if handled as an allegation, whether the matter 

should be processed as a new allegation or responded to under an existing allegation file. 

Examples are provided below: 

Example 1 – Issue Already Being Inspected by NRC 

An NRC resident inspector is evaluating issues related to a malfunctioning safety-related 

pump. The licensee had previously identified abnormal vibration in the pump and 

informed the inspector of its plans for troubleshooting the problem and their proposed 

actions depending on the results of the evaluation. The inspector has been following all 

of the licensee’s efforts related to the pump work. A plant worker returning from vacation 

is unaware of the ongoing activity and while entering the plant, engages the resident 

inspector. The worker tells the resident inspector that before he went on vacation, he 

heard a noise coming from the pump and thought it was something NRC might want to 

look into. While such a statement could be processed as an allegation, further 

discussion with the concerned individual might preclude the need to address his input by 

way of the allegation process. For example, if the inspector informs the concerned 

individual that the licensee had already informed him about the pump vibration and that 

he has been closely following the licensee’s corrective actions, and during that 

discussion, the concerned individual indicates that he is satisfied that the inspector will 

properly evaluate the issue and that no specific additional feedback is necessary, it 

would be acceptable in such a circumstance not to process the concerned individual’s 

statement as an allegation. However, if the concerned individual requests feedback, 

responsible action office staff will determine the method for tracking how that feedback is 

to be provided (e.g., region/office action item tracking system, open a non-allegation). 

If the matter being inspected by NRC is the subject of an existing, open allegation, a new 

allegation file could be opened or responsible staff could decide to include the 

concerned individual’s name and information in the existing open allegation file so that 

feedback could be provided at the same time feedback is provided to the original alleger. 

If the concerned individual’s contact information is included in the existing allegation file, 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

70

actions should be assigned to assure that prompt feedback is provided to the individual 

(i.e., a letter acknowledging receipt of his/her concern). [For alleger identity protection 

purposes, the concerned individual should not be informed that the issue being 

inspected is related to a previously submitted allegation.] If the concerned individual 

raises other concerns at the same time that are determined to be allegations, 

responsible staff should consider capturing all of the concerns as a new allegation to 

coordinate feedback to the individual. 

Example 2 – Issue Already Being Investigated by OI 

A member of the public submits a concern regarding a matter already under 

investigation by OI and indicates that he/she wants feedback. While such a concern can 

always be processed as a new allegation, feedback could also be provided under an 

existing, open allegation file. Since an allegation is opened for any matter under 

investigation by OI, the concerned individual should be informed that NRC will evaluate 

the matter and that the outcome of NRC’s evaluation will be provided at a later time. In 

this instance, since the concerned individual specifically requested feedback, the 

responsible staff could choose to include the concerned individual’s name and contact 

information in the existing allegation file related to the investigation as a reminder to 

provide feedback to the concerned individual. A letter should be provided to the 

concerned individual within about 30 days, acknowledging NRC's receipt of his/her 

concern. [In this Example, the concerned individual may or may not recognize that 

his/her concern involves potential wrongdoing or that NRC OI conducts investigations 

into such matters. When providing initial feedback to the concerned individual, this level 

of detail should not be provided. For alleger identity protection purposes, the concerned 

individual should not be informed that the issue is allegation-related or that an 

investigation is ongoing.] If the concerned individual raises additional concerns at the 

same time that are determined to be allegations, responsible staff should consider 

capturing all of his/her concerns in a new allegation file to coordinate feedback to the 

individual. 

When considering such circumstances, responsible staff should carefully assess the 

information provided by the concerned individual to determine whether it may involve 

different aspects of the matter already being inspected or investigated that could constitute a 

separate allegation. For example, if in Example 1 above, the concerned individual also told 

the inspector that he overheard that the licensee did not have a qualified replacement part 

and was planning to use a refurbished, but unqualified replacement part as an alternative to 

repair the pump, such a concern would be processed as a separate allegation. 

As for all input provided by external stakeholders, it is appropriate for NRC to consider if 

feedback is appropriate and if so, how it will be provided to the concerned individual. For 

issues that ultimately are not processed as allegations, the means of response would be 

determined by the responsible office (e.g., no feedback (if appropriate), in-person 

discussion, phone call, e-mail, letter). 

The likelihood that the outcome of NRC’s review will be publicly available must also be 

considered in determining how feedback will be provided. For matters involving an OI 

investigation, the licensee will always receive correspondence on the public docket 

regarding the results of the investigation. Inspection items however, are not always 

documented in an inspection report. If the inspection effort was not allegation-related, and 

the significance of the issue was such that it would not be discussed in an inspection report, 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

71

the responsible office would need to determine if, how, and when feedback could be 

provided to the concerned individual. Alternatively, a concerned individual may accept a 

simple explanation from NRC that if the inspection findings are significant, they will be 

reflected in a forthcoming inspection report, and if the findings are not significant, the 

findings would not be documented. As indicated in Example 1 above, if the inspection effort 

is allegation-related, responsible staff could choose to include the concerned individual’s 

name and contact information in the previous allegation file and use the allegation file as a 

reminder to provide feedback. 

Lastly, in the case of multiple individuals approaching NRC with a concern similar to a 

matter already being inspected or investigated, the responsible office may also consider 

whether the public would be better served by wider dissemination of the inspection or 

investigation results, even if the inspection effort relates to an allegation (allegation files are 

opened for all investigations). (See Manual Section 4.3 for additional discussion regarding 

circumstances when public dissemination of allegation-related information might be 

considered.) 

3.2.z Concerns Related to a Licensee Employee Concerns Program 

An ECP is a program established internally by many licensees as an alternate path for a 

facility worker to submit concerns outside of his/her management chain or via an established 

suggestion program or CAP. If a worker is uncomfortable providing concerns through 

his/her management chain or to other formal programs established for evaluating worker 

concerns (e.g., a CAP established to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, 

Criterion XVI, an industrial safety concern program), an ECP is a viable alternate path that 

provides for evaluation, resolution, and feedback regarding the concern, while also providing 

a level of identity protection to the worker to the extent practical. While there is no NRC 

requirement for a licensee to have an ECP, the establishment of an ECP is considered by 

NRC to be a positive contributor to maintaining the SCWE at a licensee’s facility (see NRC 

Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-18, “Guidance for Establishing and Maintaining a Safety 

Conscious Work Environment,” dated August 25, 2005).

The fact that there is no NRC requirement for an ECP has occasionally caused confusion as 

to whether an ECP-related concern should be processed as an allegation. To make this 

determination, the ARB should carefully consider whether the concern-in-question is 

“associated with NRC-regulated activity” as prescribed in NRC’s allegation definition. The 

following are examples of ECP-related concerns that are “associated with NRC-regulated 

activity” and warrant being processed as allegations:

- A concern raised to NRC that an ECP did not adequately address a condition adverse to 

quality (as prescribed in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI for a reactor facility 

or equivalent regulatory guidance for a materials facility). [Note: General concerns that 

the ECP is unresponsive or their evaluations are inadequate should prompt the staff to 

request additional specific information with which to judge if the issues themselves that 

the alleger believes were not addressed or not addressed adequately are associated 

with regulated activity.] 

- A concern raised to NRC that a matter raised through ECP involves potential 

wrongdoing (including discrimination) associated with NRC-regulated activity. 

- A concern raised to NRC that activity within ECP has caused a chilling effect or a chilled 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

72

work environment causing workers to be hesitant to raise safety concerns to ECP and/or 

to other programs that can receive conditions adverse to quality. 

Since maintaining an ECP is not an NRC regulatory requirement, ECP-related concerns that 

deal solely with how the program is administered are concerns that would normally not be 

processed as allegations. Examples of such ECP administrative concerns are noted below: 

- ECP does not have enough drop boxes for concerns to be left anonymously 

- ECP referred my concern to another part of the company (HR, legal, contractor) 

- ECP did not do enough to protect my identity (as an example, if such a concern was 

raised to NRC by an individual who raised an isolated chilling effect concern to ECP, it is 

reasonable to inform the concerned individual that the nature of such a concern creates 

a higher likelihood that individuals interviewed by the ECP investigator about the 

concern may surmise the concerned individual's identity) 

Even if it is determined that an ECP-related matter is not directly associated with NRCregulated activity, the ARB should always consider whether the concern may have a bearing 

on the SCWE (for example, if multiple individuals are indicating to NRC a reluctance to use 

ECP because of identity protection issues, this could be viewed as a problem potentially 

affecting the work environment). The ARB should at least consider whether the concern 

should be provided to the licensee for informational purposes. Since NRC considers an 

ECP to be a positive contributor to the SCWE and since an ECP can field a condition 

adverse to quality, disclosure of such matters to the licensee will help maintain the ECP as a 

viable alternate path for raising a concern. 

3.2.aa Concerns Raised by Current NRC Employees About Activities at a Former 

Employer 

On rare occasion, a current NRC employee will raise a concern associated with NRCregulated activities at a former employer. If the concern involves a technical matter, it 

should be provided by the employee to the responsible NRC region/office for review and 

action as deemed appropriate. The concern will not be processed as an allegation and the 

employee will not receive written feedback via the allegation program or from the 

responsible NRC region/office. If the employee is interested in how his/her technical 

concern was/is being evaluated, the employee may contact the responsible NRC 

region/office and request feedback verbally and/or by being directed to NRC documentation 

responsive to the issue. 

If the concern raised by the current NRC employee about his/her former employer involves 

potential wrongdoing or discrimination, the concern will be processed within the NRC 

allegation program as a matter of NRC staff-identified potential wrongdoing. As is the case 

with other NRC staff-identified potential wrongdoing items, the employee will not receive 

allegation process correspondence regarding the evaluation of the issue. However, the 

employee may contact the responsible OAC regarding the disposition of the NRC staffidentified wrongdoing matter. 

In the case of a current NRC employee indicating that he/she was discriminated against for 

engaging in protected activity at his/her former employer, it is appropriate for the responsible 

OAC to provide feedback regarding the disposition of the issue, given its subject matter. If it 

is determined that the employee established a prima facie showing of potential 

discrimination, the OE ADR Program manager shall be notified prior to offering the NRC 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

73

employee an opportunity to participate in Early ADR with his/her former employer. The OE 

ADR Program Manager will discuss related facts with OGC in order to obtain a legal opinion 

as to whether Early ADR should be offered. 

3.3 Processing the Received Allegation 

3.3.a Actions of the Receiving Employee and Action Office Staff 

3.3.a.1 Informing Responsible Staff About a Received Allegation 

An NRC employee receiving an allegation will inform his or her supervisor and also 

provide the information to the appropriate OAC. The allegation is initially assessed by 

these individuals to determine if it involves a potential overriding safety issue. 

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 the Office of Enforcement who will forward it to 

the appropriate OAC. (8.8 Handbook, Sections II.H.1(a)(i) and II.H.1(A)(ii)) 

3.3.a.2 Documenting an Allegation Concern 

3.3.a.2(a) Allegation Documentation 

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. The receiving employee shall follow 

the Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) handling 

requirements for transmitting allegation information to the OAC. If the received 

information contains Safeguards Information (SGI), the receiving employee shall 

refer to Management Directive 12.7 for documentation guidance. (8.8 Handbook, 

Sections II.H.1(B)(i) and II.H.1(B)(ii)) 

The means of documenting allegation receipt are specific to each regional and 

headquarters office. Employees should acquaint themselves with the procedures 

and forms used in their office for allegation receipt documentation. 

3.3.a.2(b) Documenting Concern Descriptions 

When an allegation concern is documented, it is important to describe the concern 

as it associates to NRC-regulated activity, i.e., per the definition of an allegation. 

This facilitates the evaluation of the concern from a safety and regulatory 

perspective, and makes it easier to provide a conclusion to the alleger regarding the 

results of NRC’s evaluation and to ultimately determine whether the allegation 

concern should be categorized as “substantiated” in AMS. In many instances, 

allegers are not as familiar with the regulatory requirements and guidance related to 

a concern they provide as are NRC technical staff. Therefore, in crafting NRC’s 

interpretation of the alleger’s concern, it is occasionally necessary for NRC staff 

receiving potential allegation information to make efforts to clearly associate it, if 

possible, with matters that involve NRC oversight. If the alleger’s identity is known, 

and if there is any question about the interpretation of the concern, responsible staff 

should consider contacting the alleger to obtain additional detail. Also, an alleger 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

74

whose identity is known will have a subsequent opportunity to contact the NRC if 

he/she has questions with regard to how the NRC has described his/her concern 

after receiving his/her acknowledgment letter. 

3.3.a.2(c) Articulating Underlying Technical Concerns Related to 

Allegations of Wrongdoing or Discrimination 

Every effort should be made to separate the allegation into distinct concerns to 

facilitate ARB discussion and the assignment of follow-up actions. If the allegation 

includes a wrongdoing or discrimination concern, ensure that the technical issue 

underlying the wrongdoing or discrimination concern is appropriately captured. For a 

discrimination concern, the technical matter that is the basis for the alleger’s 

protected activity should be captured as a separate allegation concern if it meets the 

definition of an allegation, and remains unresolved at the time the discrimination 

concern is provided to NRC. For example, if the alleger claims to have been 

discriminated against for identifying inadequacies in a procedure, and the alleger 

indicates that the procedure inadequacy still exists, the procedure inadequacy should 

be documented as a separate allegation concern. However, if the alleger indicates 

that the procedure inadequacy was resolved appropriately via the facility’s CAP and 

is not of current concern, it would not be necessary to document the procedure 

inadequacy as a separate allegation concern. Similarly, for an assertion of 

wrongdoing, the receiving employee should obtain information from the alleger to 

determine whether the technical matter that is the basis for the asserted willful act 

remains unresolved and fits the definition of an allegation. If so, the technical matter 

should be documented as a separate allegation concern. See Manual Section 

5.7.a.5(b)(4) for guidance with regard to determining whether an OI Investigation is 

warranted in response to an allegation of wrongdoing. 

3.3.a.3 Forwarding Allegation Reference Documentation to the OAC 

If the alleger’s submitted information also includes hard copy documentation (letters, 

envelopes, reference documents, drawings, etc.), the receiving employee shall ensure 

that the OAC receives the original documentation either by hand delivering it to the OAC, 

or by making a copy and then forwarding the original documentation to the OAC by mail 

or alternate carrier. If it is possible to transmit the information to the OAC by e-mail or 

facsimile, this may be done in the interim, provided the receiving employee verifies that 

the OAC received the e-mailed or faxed information. Once the receiving employee has 

verified that the OAC has received the original allegation documentation, he/she will 

destroy the documentation in his/her possession. 

3.3.a.4 General Restriction on Allegation Review Activities Prior to an ARB 

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 and/or the OAC or designated staff has briefed appropriate NRC 

management. Should it be determined by NRC management that immediate action 

and/or licensee notification is necessary to address an overriding safety issue prior to an 

initial ARB meeting, a subsequent ARB meeting shall be held as soon as practicable, to 

affirm actions already taken and develop follow-up 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 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

75

this discussion may be credited as the initial ARB. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.1(c)) 

3.3.a.5 Actions of Responsible Action Office Staff 

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: 

 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 Manual Section 5.1 for ARB guidance),

 propose the necessary follow-up actions for discussion at an ARB meeting and, as

assigned by the ARB, implement those actions,

 propose actions to be explored during the ARB meeting, if time does not permit staff

review prior to the ARB.

(8.8 Handbook, Sections II.H.1(d)(i), II.H.1(d)(ii), and II.H.1(d)(iii)) 

3.3.a.6 Allegation Discussion/Meeting Precautions 

The following precautions are to be considered with regard to discussions or meetings 

that involve allegation information: 

• Before a discussion/meeting involving allegation information, ensure that

participating personnel are identified and are authorized to have access to the

information to be discussed.

• Advise personnel participating in the discussion/meeting of the protective measures

required for allegation information.

• Ensure that no discussion takes place that is audible or visible to persons not

authorized access to or without a need to know the information.

3.3.a.7 General Reference Questions for ARB Preparation 

The following is a list of general reference questions to aid responsible staff in assessing 

a received allegation concern and determining proposed courses of action for 

presentation to the initial ARB:

o Is there an overriding safety concern that must be promptly addressed? If the

concern is not an overriding safety issue but still has time sensitivity associated with

it, what actions are necessary and within what time frame?

o Has the staff previously addressed the issue?

o Have a substantial number of similar allegation concerns been provided to NRC?

o What is the potential for wrongdoing and will investigative assistance be needed? If

so, what is the regulatory basis for the underlying technical concern?

o Does the allegation file contain sufficient information to permit a thorough

evaluation? If not, identify the additional information needed.

o Is disclosure of the alleger’s identity necessary to enable a thorough evaluation of
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

76

the allegation concern? 

o Can the issues be adequately addressed by a technical inspection in a timely

manner? Consider the schedule of the next baseline inspection that may address

the subject matter of the concern and whether this time frame will provide a timely

response to the alleger. If timeliness is an issue, consider whether a resident

inspector could review the issue more quickly. If review of an allegation concern

cannot be included in a sample of issues during a routine inspection or reviewed by a

resident inspector without significant licensee involvement, an RFI to the licensee

may be a more appropriate option.

o Identify any peripheral issues that could develop.

o Has the issue been entered into the licensee's CAP? If so, what is the justification

for doing additional follow up? Has the alleger articulated why the licensee has not

or will not appropriately address the concern by way of the CAP? With specific

examples?

o Are there any licensing actions, enforcement actions, actions previously assigned by

the ARB, or other pending allegation concerns that could be affected by the

allegation concern being reviewed? When an allegation involves a case pending

before a licensing board or the Commission, information concerning the allegation

should be provided to NRR, NRO, or NMSS as soon as possible to assist in

determining whether notification should be made to the presiding officer. NRR,

NRO, or NMSS must make this decision promptly in accordance with office

procedures.

o Can inspection or other resources be effectively utilized to pursue the issue or is the

allegation concern too vague? If further consideration of the allegation concern does

not appear to be warranted, it is acceptable to make a recommendation to the ARB

that the alleger be informed that NRC will be unable to pursue the matter without

additional specific information.

o Can licensee resources reasonably be used in resolving the allegation? Consider

potential problems associated with issuing an RFI to the licensee. (See Manual

Section 5.6.d.4 regarding ARB consideration of an RFI to the licensee.)

o Does the allegation have the potential to require escalated enforcement action?

o Determine if other NRC offices should be notified (e.g., if the allegation has generic

implications, a program office may need to be engaged).

o Establish a schedule for the evaluation of each allegation concern that is consistent

with the licensing schedule, if applicable.

3.3.b OAC Actions 

3.3.b.1 OAC Activities 

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.2(a)) 

3.3.b.2 ARB Scheduling 

The OAC convenes an ARB of appropriate personnel to review each allegation for safety 

significance and determine appropriate actions to evaluate the allegation (see Manual 

Section 5.1 for ARB guidance). (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.2(b)) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

77

3.3.b.3 Provision of Allegation-Related Information to Responsible Staff 

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 to responsible managers, status information related to open 

allegations, and historical allegation data to enable identification of and a focus on 

allegation trend areas. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.2(c)) 

3.3.b.4 OAC Actions Regarding Concerns Outside NRC Jurisdiction 

As appropriate, an ARB may assign the following actions to the OAC or other designated 

staff: 

 Notify appropriate agencies of concerns outside NRC jurisdiction;

 Provide external agency contact information to the concerned individual (e.g., the

contact information for the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) for

alleged discrimination related to age, sex, race, or ethnic origin).

Note: 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.2(d)) 

3.3.b.5 OAC Actions Regarding Generic Concerns or Concerns Involving 

Technical Expertise of an NRC Office 

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 (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.2(e)) (See Manual Sections 5.6.a and 

5.6.c): 

 Notify headquarters offices and other regional offices that may be affected, and;

 Discuss the potential for allegation transfer to a headquarters office, or;

 Discuss the potential need to request information from a headquarters office.

 To request input from NRR, use a Task Interface Agreement (TIA).

 To request input from FSME, NMSS, NRO, or NSIR, use a Technical Assistance

Request (TAR).

3.3.b.6 OAC Actions Regarding Vague Concerns or Concerns Lacking in 

Detail 

If the information received from a prospective alleger is vague or lacks sufficient detail to 

enable appropriate determination of a relationship to matters under NRC purview and/or 

safety and regulatory significance, the OAC will assist the staff in obtaining additional 

information through further contact with the alleger, preferably prior to the initial ARB. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

78

3.3.b.7 Identification of Concerns 

As requested, the OAC will assist the staff in identifying and separating the issues 

involved in a received allegation into distinct concerns: 

3.3.b.7(a) Most Common Concern Types 

 technical concerns

 wrongdoing concerns (willful noncompliance with an NRC requirement, submittal

of incomplete or inaccurate information, falsification of required records,

provision/use of counterfeit/fraudulent parts)

 discrimination concerns (including harassment, intimidation, and retaliation)

 technical concerns that form the basis for assertions of wrongdoing or

discrimination concerns

 chilled work environment concerns

 safety culture concerns (other than those involving SCWE)

3.3.b.7(b) Separating Information Provided by the Alleger into Distinct 

Concerns 

In most instances, it is preferable to break down the issues described by the alleger 

into distinct concerns that may be responded to separately. If too many aspects of 

an issue described by an alleger are grouped into one concern, it can make 

evaluation efforts cumbersome and complicate the description of concern closure. 

However, aspects of an issue provided by an alleger may be so intertwined in certain 

instances that there are occasions when it is appropriate to group a number of 

aspects into a single concern. 

3.3.b.7(c) Developing a List of Concerns 

If the alleger’s identity is known, the development of the enclosure to an

acknowledgment letter describing the alleger’s concerns provides an appropriate 

opportunity to present the alleger’s concerns clearly, as NRC understands them. In 

such instances, if the alleger does not agree with NRC’s description of his/her 

concerns, or feels that the NRC overlooked a concern or an aspect of a concern, the 

alleger is offered an opportunity in the acknowledgment letter to contact the NRC 

and provide clarification. 

3.3.b.8 OAC as Primary Alleger Point of Contact 

Since the OAC is responsible for ensuring that communications are maintained with the 

alleger other than for OI-recruited confidential sources, the OAC should normally be the 

NRC’s single point of contact for the alleger. Establishing a single point of contact 

provides better control of communications, develops rapport, establishes continuity in 

the flow of information between the regional and headquarters offices, and contributes to 

the protection of the alleger’s identity. In some instances, such as for complex technical 

issues or issues inspected by the staff, it may be helpful to designate an additional NRC 

staff member as a technical point of contact, or to designate the other NRC staff member 

as the single point of contact. This designation is at the discretion of regional or 

headquarters office management. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

79

3.3.c Allegation File Documentation Including Document Handling, Sensitivity, 

and Storage 

3.3.c.1 Allegation Number 

A unique identifying number is established for each allegation when the OAC documents 

the allegation in the Allegation Management System (AMS) database. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.H.3(a)) The OAC inputs pertinent information regarding each allegation into 

AMS upon allegation receipt and as the allegation is evaluated to facilitate the reporting 

of allegation status at periodic intervals to responsible staff. 

3.3.c.2 Allegation File 

3.3.c.2(a) File Creation/Maintenance 

The OAC establishes a hard copy file (the official agency record) for each 

allegation to contain all allegation-related documentation, including 

documentation of related OI investigations of wrongdoing concerns and DOL 

review of discrimination concerns. It is important to retain all pertinent 

documentation related to the allegation (including (as applicable) - receipt 

documentation, completed ARB forms, RFI worksheet, correspondence, 

conversation records, OI report, alleger interview transcript, inspection report, 

staff evaluations, “3-week e-mail” documentation, DOL decisions, response after 

closure (RAC) documentation, pertinent e-mail messages, etc.) so that a 

complete and accurate record of NRC’s allegation evaluation activity is 

established. Manual Exhibit 24 provides a checklist to aid in determining whether 

an allegation file contains necessary documentation. For documentation that is 

available in ADAMS (e.g., inspection reports), it is acceptable to include a 

reference in the allegation file instead of including a copy of the entire report. 

3.3.c.2(b) Exclusion of Allegation File Information from ADAMS 

Allegation documentation shall not be processed or recorded in ADAMS or any 

other electronic location with the potential for public access. The staff shall also 

refrain from placing in ADAMS information that discusses specific allegation 

process related activities but does not relate to a specific allegation (for example, 

ARB schedules, program self-assessment documentation, allegation status 

reports). This guidance does not apply to documents that relate to an allegation 

that are normally publicly available (e.g., inspection reports). 

3.3.c.2(c) Retention of Confidentiality Agreements 

For allegers with confidential source status, the signed confidentiality agreement 

shall be maintained in the related allegation file, subject to the security 

requirements imposed for confidential allegation information (see Manual Section 

3.3.c.8). The file should include documentation describing why confidential 

source status was granted. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

80

3.3.c.2(d) Allegation File Retrievability 

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). (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.H.3(b)) 

3.3.c.3 Prohibition on Maintaining a Separate List Relating Allegation 

Numbers to Alleger Names 

NRC Allegation files are NOT maintained as a Privacy Act (PA) System of Records, that 

is, "a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is 

retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other 

identifying particular assigned to the individual." A separate listing relating alleger 

names to allegation numbers may not be kept as this would turn the file system into a 

PA System of Records without following legal requirements and could lead to criminal or 

civil penalties for employees who maintain such a list. No employee shall maintain an 

official or unofficial index cross-referencing an allegation number to the alleger’s name or 

other personal identifier without express permission from the Agency Allegation Advisor 

(AAA). All documentation must be clearly marked with the allegation number so that the 

records are filed, stored, and retrieved by the allegation number and not by any personal 

identifier of the alleger or confidential source. This does not apply to OI investigationrelated documents maintained in an allegation file (i.e., investigation report, interview 

transcripts). While OI maintains its investigation-related documents within a PA System 

of Records, retaining OI information in an allegation file does not make the allegation file 

part of a PA System of Records. 

3.3.c.4 Allegation File Cover Sheets 

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 Manual Exhibit 3). There is an exception for 

allegation files involving an alleger with confidential source status. Such files require a 

red “Warning - Confidential Allegation Material” cover sheet (NRC Form 761) (see 

Manual Exhibit 4). Note: Allegation file storage and access control mechanisms are 

outlined in Manual Section 3.3.c.7. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.3(c)) 

3.3.c.5 Protection of Documents Removed from the Allegation File 

Documentation that contains the identity of an alleger or other information that would 

identify the alleger may be separated from the official allegation file, if it is appropriately 

protected. The documentation must have the appropriate cover sheet to indicate that 

the documentation contains sensitive allegation information. The documentation should 

be conspicuously marked (typed or stamped) to indicate that the document identifies an 

alleger, depending on the document type (i.e., letter to an alleger, letter/documents from 

an alleger, or other document that specifically identifies the alleger or contains other 

alleger identifying information). More specific guidance regarding allegation file 

documentation handling in accordance with SUNSI handling requirements is provided in 

Manual Section 3.3.c.8. 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.3(d)) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

81

3.3.c.6 Preliminary Notifications Referencing Allegation Information 

It may be determined that an allegation-related matter is to be addressed in a 

Preliminary Notification (PN) (see NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1120, “Preliminary 

Notifications” for additional information). The PN should not identify the source of the 

allegation concern(s), that the information was provided by an alleger, or that the 

information is the subject of an allegation. Approval of the action office director should 

be obtained before issuance of the PN. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.3(e)) 

3.3.c.7 Storage of Official Agency Allegation Files and Documents 

3.3.c.7(a) Storage Location 

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.4.(a)) 

3.3.c.7(b) Storage Location Access Control 

Keycard access to NRC buildings provides adequate security for allegation files and 

documents containing the identity of an alleger. However, caution should be taken to 

place the information in an inconspicuous location if non-NRC personnel or NRC 

personnel without a need-to-know are to be in a particular work area. Allegation files 

and documents containing the identity of an alleger who has been granted 

confidential source status or Safeguards Information shall be stored in a container 

approved for such information and shall not be stored with allegation files that do not 

contain such information. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.4(b)) (See Allegation 

Information SUNSI guidance in Manual Section 3.3.c.8 for more specific information 

regarding allegation file storage.) 

3.3.c.7(c) Limitation on Distribution of Allegation Documentation 

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 allegationrelated FOIA request, or allegation-related documents that are provided to SECY for 

certification that records are true copies. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.H.4(c)) 

3.3.c.7(d) Allegation File Check Out Control 

The OAC should maintain a system for locating an allegation file when it is taken 

from its normal storage location (e.g., a file check-out log, a check out form that is 

placed in the physical file location from which the file was removed.) 

3.3.c.7(e) Allegation Information Photocopy Control

The OAC exercises control over the reproduction (photocopy or other) of information 

related to an allegation. Multiple copies or simultaneous review copies must be 

returned to the allegation file or destroyed unless the information has been redacted 

to remove information that could identify the alleger. Employees must take 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

82

precautions to ensure that there are no unauthorized copies of sensitive allegation 

information residing in electronic systems. 

3.3.c.7(f) Allegation Documentation Control at Staff Work Stations 

Allegation files or allegation-related information removed from the allegation file by 

staff for allegation processing purposes is to be kept in an inconspicuous location at 

the staff member’s work location when not in use (e.g., in a desk drawer). Duplicate 

allegation working files that retain an NRC Form 762 cover sheet may be stored 

overnight in the staff member’s work location, but are also to be kept in an 

inconspicuous location. The information should be returned to the allegation file 

when not in use and should not be retained at the staff member’s work location for 

an extended period of time. Information or documents containing the identity of a 

confidential source must be returned to the OAC for storage in the official allegation 

file before the end of the workday and may not be stored in another location 

overnight. The official allegation files should not be taken out of the NRC regional or 

headquarters offices under any circumstances. Once work on an allegation file has 

been completed and the staff member’s working file is no longer needed, the 

information should be destroyed, returned to the OAC for destruction, or returned to 

the official file for possible future use by another staff member. 

3.3.c.7(g) Exclusion of OIG-Related Information from the Allegation File 

For allegations that also include assertions of misconduct on the part of NRC staff or 

contractors, records pertinent to those assertions should not be retained in the 

allegation file, but rather are to be forwarded to the appropriate office director or 

regional administrator for review and possible transfer to OIG. 

3.3.c.7(h) Allegation File Retention/Destruction Requirements 

Closed allegation files should be retained under the control of the OAC for at least 2 

years and then may be archived. Allegation files may be destroyed 10 years after 

the cases are closed in accordance with “NRC Comprehensive Records Disposition 

Schedule” (NUREG-0910). The Information and Data Operations Branch - 

Operations Division in OIS is the appropriate contact organization for information 

regarding the transfer of allegation files to the archive facility. 

3.3.c.7(i) Retention of Allegation Information by NRC Offices That Are 

Not Action Offices 

OEDO and SECY maintain copies of incoming allegation information that was sent 

directly to the Chairman, the Commissioners, or the EDO for tracking purposes. It is 

also necessary for the FOIA, Privacy and Information Collections Branch in OIS, as 

well as OI, to maintain allegation information in the course of performing the official 

duties of those offices. The allegation records retained by these organizations are to 

be treated on a strictly need-to-know basis and handling and control of the records 

will be in accordance with MD 8.8, this Manual, and applicable SUNSI guidance. 

The OIS FOIA, Privacy and Information Collections Branch may reproduce allegation 

information without the specific authorization of the OAC and need not store 

confidential allegation information in a location designated for confidential allegation 

information. All other requirements apply. OI maintains independent records 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

83

regarding the criminal or civil investigations it conducts, including records related to 

OI confidential sources. 

Distribution of the response to allegation-related ticketed correspondence also 

should be limited (e.g., SECY, EDO, and others with a need-to-know). The AAA or 

an OAC should be consulted regarding the appropriate individuals or offices to be 

placed on distribution. 

3.3.c.7(j) Exceptions 

Any exceptions to the allegation documentation handling requirements noted in 

Manual Section 3.3.c.7(a) through 3.3.c.7(i) above will be considered on a case-bycase basis by the AAA. 

3.3.c.8 Allegation Information - SUNSI Handling Guidance 

SUNSI is to be properly handled, marked, and adequately protected from unauthorized 

disclosure. “SUNSI” refers to any information of which the loss, misuse, modification, or 

unauthorized access can reasonably be foreseen to harm the public interest, the 

commercial or financial interests of the entity or individual to whom the information 

pertains, the conduct of NRC and Federal programs, or the personal privacy of 

individuals. Allegation information is one of seven information groups categorized as 

SUNSI. NRC employees, consultants, contractors, and subcontractors are responsible 

for ensuring that specified procedures are followed to protect SUNSI. The NRC internal 

web address containing SUNSI handling requirements is: 

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/sunsi/. 

3.3.c.8(a) Applicable SUNSI Allegation Document Categories 

- Confidential Allegation Information 

- Sensitive Allegation Information 

3.3.c.8(b) Authority to Designate 

- OAC in coordination with office or region 

3.3.c.8(c) Access – Who May Have Access? 

- OAC 

- NRC personnel based on a need-to-know the information to perform their official 

duties. A security clearance is not required for access to allegation information. 

However, if any doubt exists as to whether it is proper to grant access to allegation 

information, consult with the cognizant OAC. 

3.3.c.8(d) Marking 

 What documents should be marked?

o OACs will mark any hard copies of correspondence from allegers, including

allegers with confidential source status, that is removed/copied from the
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

84

official file and provided to the staff that contain the identity of the individual or 

other information which could identify the alleger. 

o Mark the allegation number on the front page of letters to allegers and on the

upper right corner or each subsequent page.

 Who may authorize document marking?

o OAC

 How should a document be marked?

o For allegation information in hard copy from an alleger that is removed/copied

from the official file and provided to the staff, where appropriate, the OAC will

stamp “This document identifies an alleger (or confidential source)” on the

bottom of each page of hard copy correspondence from an alleger or

confidential source.

o To prevent the inadvertent release to a third party of correspondence to an

alleger, type the allegation number on the front page and on the upper right

corner of each subsequent page of letters to allegers.

 When is portion or page marking required?

o No portion marking required

3.3.c.8(e) Cover Sheet 

 When should a cover sheet be used?

o On all allegation files and on all allegation documentation which contains the

identity of the alleger, including an alleger who has been granted confidential

source status or other information that could identify an alleger.

 What cover sheet is used?

o Red Allegation Cover Sheet (NRC Form 761), “Confidential Allegation

Material:” for documents containing the identity of an alleger with confidential

source status.

o Blue Allegation Cover Sheet (NRC Form 762), “Sensitive Allegation Material”

for all others.

3.3.c.8(f) Reproduction 

 How many copies may be made?

o Only reproduction authorized by the OAC is allowed. Verbal authorization is

acceptable. Specific exemptions must be granted by the AAA on a case-bycase basis.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

85

o Multiple copies or simultaneous review copies must be returned to the file or

destroyed, unless the information has been sanitized with regard to the

identity of the alleger and other information that could reveal his/her identity.

Specific exemptions must be granted by the AAA on a case-by-case basis.

[Note: Where restrictions are imposed on reproduction, the employee must

also ensure that there are no non-authorized copies residing in electronic

systems, such as on the network drive, local hard drive, or portable media.]

3.3.c.8(g) Processing on Electronic Systems 

 On what information systems may the document be processed?

o NRC LAN and other systems accredited under MD 12.5, “NRC Automated

Security Program.”

 Is encryption required while data is at rest?

o Yes. Follow the policy outlined in Yellow Announcement No. 157.

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/announcements/yellow/2008/2008-157.html

 May the information be processed in ADAMS?

o No

3.3.c.8(h) Use at Home 

 May I use the document at home?

o No, for Confidential Allegation Information.

o For other Allegation Information, allegation files may not be removed from the

regional or program offices. However, copies of allegation information which

do not contain the identity of the alleger or other information which could

identify the alleger can be used at home under the following conditions:

 Employees are prohibited from routinely using, handling, or storing the

information at their residences.

 Occasional use at an employees’ residence requires the approval of the

employee’s immediate supervisor or above.

 To ensure that the information is not viewed or accessed inadvertently or

willfully by a person not authorized access, the employee must ensure

that the information cannot be seen by a family member, guest, or any

other individual who is not authorized access.

 Information should not be saved/stored on a hard drive if the computer is

shared with others. Work should be performed and saved on removable

media that is fully encrypted according to Yellow Announcement No. 157
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

86

Information Technology Security Policy. 

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/announcements/yellow/2008/2008-157.html. 

 May I use the information at home under NRC Flexible Workplace Program

o No, for Confidential Allegation Information.

o For other Allegation Information, if you are approved to work at home under

the NRC Flexible Workplace Program, use in accordance with standards set

forth in NRC Form 624, Flexible Workplace Program Participation

Agreement. Allegation files may not be removed from the regional or

headquarters offices. However, copies of allegation information which do not

contain the identity of the alleger or other information which could identify the

alleger can be used at home under the following conditions:

 To ensure that the information is not viewed or accessed inadvertently or

willfully by a person not authorized access, the employee must ensure

that the information cannot be seen by a family member, guest, or any

other individual who is not authorized access.

 All employees, including the staff and contractors, are prohibited from

installing peer-to-peer (P2P) software on agency computers without the

explicit written approval of an agency Designated Approving Authority. In

addition, employees are prohibited from processing SUNSI on home

computers unless connected to and working within CITRIX, the NRC

Broadband Remote Access System. Employees are prohibited from

downloading or storing SUNSI to the hard drive of a home computer

when connected to and working within CITRIX. Employees are also

prohibited expressly from processing SUNSI on home computers even

when an encrypted floppy disk, CD, DVD, or thumb drive is the storage

media.

 Employees who work at home must perform electronic processing of

SUNSI on either (1) a home computer within the virtual environment

provided by the agency through CITRIX or (2) an NRC-issued laptop with

NRC-approved encryption software.

3.3.c.8(i) Use While Traveling or Commuting 

 May I use the information while on official travel or commuting to or from work?

o No, for Confidential Allegation Information.

o Yes, for Sensitive Allegation Material, if it has been redacted to remove

alleger identification or fingerprinting information. If Yes, staff must abide by

the following requirements:

 Use of the information is discouraged while traveling on public

transportation. To ensure that the information is not viewed or accessed

inadvertently or willfully, the employee must ensure that it cannot be seen

by persons not authorized access. Particular care should be taken on a
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

87

public conveyance or in waiting rooms where others may be sitting and 

standing in close proximity to where the information is being used. 

 Individuals should hand carry protected information during travel only if

other means for transmitting the information, e.g., mailing ahead, secure

faxing, are not readily available or are operationally unacceptable. If hand

carrying is determined to be the best transport method, care must be

exercised to ensure that the information is not compromised through loss

or inadvertent access.

 Information must be kept in the traveler’s personal possession to extent

possible, and stored, appropriately wrapped, in hotel security facilities if

possible.

 Information must not be saved/stored on a personally owned computer.

Work must be performed on an encrypted laptop computer or other

encrypted mobile IT device to preclude unauthorized access if the laptop

or device is lost or stolen.

 The information should be returned to an NRC authorized storage

location at the earliest possible opportunity.

3.3.c.8(j) Physical Copy Transmission 

 May I transmit paper or electronic media, including CD-ROM, disk or tape?

o Yes. Only to another NRC employee who has a need-to-know the

information to perform their official duties.

Special Requirements: Internal correspondence containing information that could 

reveal the identity of an alleger, including an alleger with confidential source 

status, which is transmitted via mail must be transmitted in a sealed envelope 

marked “To Be Opened By Addressee Only.”

Staff must abide by the following requirements: 

Inside the NRC: Information may be –

 Hand-carried by an individual authorized access. The individual shall retain

the information in his/her possession to the maximum extent possible unless

he/she places the document in the custody of another individual who has

authorized access.

 Sent via NRC’s interoffice mail system.

 Sent via NRC pouch service between headquarters and the regions. Transmit

in a single opaque envelope.

 Transmitted via commercial express carrier.

Outside the NRC: 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

88

For correspondence other than to allegers –

 Hand carry by an individual authorized access. The individual shall retain the

information in his/her possession to the maximum extent possible unless

he/she places the document in the custody of another individual who has

authorized access.

 Send by NRC Messenger/NRC contract messenger.

 Send by U.S Postal Service: First Class Mail, Registered Mail, Express Mail,

Certified Mail.

 Transmit via commercial express carrier.

For correspondence to allegers –

 Send letters to allegers only by U.S. Postal Service, Certified Mail, or

alternative private carriers if they provide a record of receipt by the alleger or

an authorized agent.

Incoming to the NRC: Electronic submissions, including CD-ROMs, submitted to 

the NRC should follow the E-Rule "Guidance for Electronic Submission to the 

Agency," available on NRC's external Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. 

Encryption: All electronic media (CD-Rom, disk, tape, hard drives, thumb drives, 

etc.) must be encrypted according to Yellow Announcement No. 157. 

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/announcements/yellow/2008/2008-157.html

3.3.c.8(k) Electronic Copy Transmission 

 May I transmit the document electronically by e-mail or fax?

o Yes. Only via NRC LAN to another NRC employee who has a need-to-know

the information to perform their official duties.

Additional Requirements for Allegation Material: 

 Internal electronic files, faxes, or e-mails should include appropriate

allegation cover sheets.

 Electronic transmittals should have the name of the alleger and other

personal identifiers redacted unless the recipient has a need-to-know this

information and should have “Sensitive Allegation Material” in the subject line.

Abide by the following requirements: 

Inside the NRC (including regions): Information may be e-mailed or faxed. 

Electronic file must contain appropriate markings. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

89

Outside the NRC: 

 Fax: May use non-secure facilities where it is confirmed that a recipient who

is authorized to access the information will be present to receive the

information.

 E-Mail: Email correspondence with allegers is permitted only after

coordination with an OAC. Encryption is currently not required by the NRC.

A separate policy to address encryption of transmitted data will be issued by

the Computer Security Office when it is approved.

 Otherwise, transmit a physical copy in the manner set forth above.

3.3.c.8(l) Storage 

 Confidential Allegation Material: Must be stored in a secure container reserved

only for that material. Information which may reveal the identity of an alleger with

confidential source status must be returned to the OAC for storage in the agency

file before the end of the workday and may not be stored in another location

overnight. The AAA will consider exemptions to these requirements on a caseby-case basis.

 Sensitive Allegation Material: May be stored in a non-locking agency file when

being used where there is supplementary security including electronic access

controls (keycards) and/or guards on duty. If management determines that

additional protection is needed or if supplementary security controls are not

available, the information should be stored in key locked file cabinets or

equivalent storage containers. [Note: A staff member may retain allegation

information in his/her office during or beyond the end of the workday, if the

information retains an appropriate cover sheet and is stored in an inconspicuous

location (e.g., in a desk drawer or cabinet) whenever leaving his/her office, as

long as the file does not contain Safeguards Information or involve a confidential

source.] Official files must be stored in an officially designated location.

Allegation files are not to be removed from the NRC office designated as their

official storage location unless being transferred to another office or unless

necessary for certification that records are true copies of the Office of the

Secretary.

 Duplicate Allegation Working Files: Should have the name of the alleger or other

identifying information redacted or have the appropriate cover sheet.

3.3.c.8(m) Destruction 

 Specific Requirements for Allegations: Drafts of all staff-generated information or

documents related to allegations should be destroyed when the document is

finalized.

 Official Record Version: Destroy in accordance with “NRC Comprehensive

Records Disposition Schedule” (NUREG-0910). Allegation files may be

destroyed 10 years after cases are closed.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

90

 Non-Official Record Copies: Destroy copies other than the official record version

by any means that can prevent reconstruction in whole or in part, including the

following methods:

 Place in Classified and Sensitive Unclassified Waste Disposal Containers.

 Tear document into one-half inch pieces or smaller.

 Destroy by burning, pulping, pulverizing, shredding or chemical

decomposition.

 Electronic Data: Use special approaches to delete sensitive unclassified data

from electronic storage media. These approaches, as mentioned in the MD 12.5

Handbook, include –

 Destruction of the physical media.

 Obliteration or wiping of the sensitive data through the use of an approved

software product such as, BCWIPE or SDELETE.

 Erasure of all data through degaussing.

3.3.c.8(n) Decontrol Authority 

 AAA

3.3.c.9 Other Allegation Document Handling Considerations 

3.3.c.9(a) Inadvertent or Unauthorized Release of Allegation 

Information 

Whenever SUNSI, which includes allegation information, is inadvertently released or 

disclosed by the NRC or its contractors, the responsible office must report the 

release to management within 1 hour either by 1.) clicking on the "Report a 

Safety/Security Incident" button on the NRC internal website, or 2.) contacting the 

hotline for the ADM Division of Facilities and Security (DFS), 310-415-6666. 

ADM/DFS maintains the Incident Response Database, and is responsible for 

forwarding reports to appropriate offices. If the release includes alleger identifying 

information, the staff shall also notify the AAA and OIG directly. If the report is made 

using the button on the NRC internal website, the individual making the report is 

given several options, including the following: 

 Report a Physical Security Incident

 Report a Computer Security Incident

 Report a Personal Security Incident

 Report a Workplace Injury or Illness
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

91

[Note: Inadvertent release of allegation information in hard-copy (i.e., via a letter sent 

to an alleger by mail or alternate carrier) should be reported via the “Report a 

Physical Security Incident” button.]

All safety/security incidents should include the following information: 

 date of incident

 equipment or system involved (e.g., computer, facsimile, phone)

 highest level of information involved in the incident

 brief description of the corrective actions currently being implemented

If the inadvertent release occurs via ADAMS or NRC’s public web site, the ADAMS 

Support Center must also be immediately notified. (See Manual Section 4.2.h for 

additional detail regarding actions to be taken if an alleger’s identity is released 

inadvertently.) 

3.3.c.9(b) Release of Information to the Public 

Allegation information is not considered for routine release to the public via ADAMS. 

However, allegation documentation requested by the public via the Freedom of 

Information Act must be reviewed to determine whether the documentation, or part 

thereof, is releasable or is exempt from public disclosure (see MD 3.1, “Freedom of 

Information Act”). The presence or absence of cover sheets or markings as 

“Allegation Information,” “Investigation Information,” or similar markings, does not 

determine whether a document may be withheld from the public. Whenever an NRC 

employee has a question as to whether information can be released, the employee 

should consult with the employee’s supervisor or—

 The FOIA Privacy and Information Collections Branch, IRSD/OIS if a request for

information involves the FOIA or the PA.

 The AAA regarding allegation information.

3.3.c.9(c) “No Comment” Policy Regarding the Accuracy of Released 

Allegation Information 

Should an NRC employee be contacted by an organization outside of the agency to 

confirm or deny either the accuracy or sensitivity of the purported release of 

allegation information in the public domain, NRC employees should respond to such 

a request with a "no comment" statement. If an NRC employee has any questions 

about how to handle a request for comment about an unauthorized release of 

allegation information in the public domain, the employee should consult with his/her

supervisor and the responsible OAC. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

92

4.0 Protection of Alleger Identity 

4.1 Alleger Identity Protection 

4.1.a Informing an Alleger About the Allegation Program Identity Protection 

Policy 

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

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

identity protection should be provided during the initial discussion, if possible. If an 

allegation is received by other means (e.g., letter, electronic mail), and the alleger’s identity

and contact information is known, the Office Allegation Coordinator (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. This action is taken so that 

an alleger does not incorrectly assume that identity is protected by NRC under all 

circumstances. For an alleger who has been granted confidential source status, identity 

protection is also referred to as confidentiality (8.8 Handbook, Sections II.F.1, II.F.2, and 

II.F.3) (see Manual Section 4.4, and the definitions of “identity protection,” “confidentiality,”

and “confidential source” in the Manual Glossary). 

4.1.b Allegation Program Identity Protection Policy 

NRC will take all reasonable efforts not to disclose an alleger’s identity. An alleger’s identity, 

or information that would reveal an alleger’s identity, is not normally distributed or discussed 

among the NRC staff. If discussion of alleger identity is necessary to evaluate an allegation, 

the discussion shall only involve staff with a need to know. Therefore, staff should be 

sensitive to the location of allegation-related discussions in order to provide reasonable 

assurance that sensitive allegation information is not disclosed to staff without a need-toknow or to non-NRC personnel. (8.8 Handbook, Sections II.F.4(a) and II.F.4(b)) 

Coordinating with the OAC, the responsible NRC manager will provide allegation-related 

information to staff that are assigned allegation follow-up action, will inform resident 

inspectors about open allegations and past allegation trends related to their assigned 

facility, and will inform non-resident inspectors about open allegations and past allegation 

trends pertaining to the facility and 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. The allegation-related 

information provided to resident and non-resident inspectors will not include the identity of 

the alleger, unless doing so is necessary to evaluate the allegation. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.F.5) To support this effort, the responsible regional manager may request information

from the OAC, for example, an AMS report of all allegations opened in the previous 12 

months that are associated with a particular facility and/or area of inspection. 

OI is always made aware of an alleger’s identity if a wrongdoing or discrimination matter is 

involved or suspected, and is otherwise informed of the alleger’s identity as deemed 

appropriate. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.4(d)) 

4.1.c Implementing the Allegation Program Identity Protection Policy 

NRC practice is to neither confirm nor deny to a licensee or the public that an individual is 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

93

an alleger, except when compelled to disclose an alleger’s identity for any of the reasons 

indicated in Manual Section 4.2.a. The following provisions apply with regard to protecting 

the identity of all allegers, including those who have been granted confidential source status: 

(8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.6) 

• Inspections and inspection-related documents should address relevant issues without

acknowledging that an issue was raised in the context of an allegation. (8.8 Handbook,

Section II.F.6(a))

• 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. The licensee is notified when it is deemed necessary during the conduct of

an inspection requested by a worker in accordance with 10 CFR 19.16(a); or an OI

investigation of wrongdoing. Regional administrator or headquarters office director

approval is not required to inform the licensee that an OI investigation is related to an

allegation, because licensees are aware that OI investigations are tracked by the NRC

allegation program. Additionally, the licensee may already be aware of the allegation

based on an earlier Request for Information related to the allegation. (8.8 Handbook,

Section II.F.6(b)) [See Manual Section 5.1.b.2 for guidance regarding rare

circumstances when the ARB might consider publicly identifying an issue as an

allegation. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.11)]

• 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. (8.8 Handbook,

Section II.F.7)

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 obtain resolution of the allegation, or otherwise serves the needs of the 

agency. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.8) 

When information identifying the alleger is released to the licensee, the identity of the 

alleger should normally be provided to the licensee verbally rather than in the letter 

requesting information from the licensee. Written documentation of the alleger’s lack of 

objection to identity release will be noted in the related allegation file. (8.8 Handbook, 

Sections II.F.9(a) and II.F.9(b)) 

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

information that could identify an alleger. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.10) 

• 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

file, of both. 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 which

would repeat the alleger’s name many times.] Allegation file documentation must be

appropriately controlled as noted in Manual Section 3.3.c. (8.8 Handbook, Section

II.F.4(c))
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

94

• If an allegation concern is referred or if an RFI is sent to the licensee for response, the

concern should be modified (reworded and/or retyped) as necessary to protect the

alleger’s identity (see Manual Section 5.6.d.6 for further discussion of precautions taken

to protect the identity of an alleger when allegation concerns are provided external to

NRC for review).

• Allegation file information and documentation that could reveal the identity of an alleger

shall not be reproduced without the authorization of the responsible OAC, the Director,

OI, or the responsible headquarters office director or regional administrator. Drafts of

staff-generated information or documents related to allegations should be destroyed

when the document is finalized.

• Internal correspondence containing the alleger’s identity or information that could reveal

the identity of an alleger must be transmitted in a sealed envelope marked "To Be

Opened by Addressee Only." For NRC internal electronic transmittals via e-mail to staff

members with a need-to-know, the sender is not required to redact the alleger’s identity

and other personal identifiers from the e-mail; however, the e-mail should include

"Sensitive Allegation Material" in the subject heading to alert the receiving staff

member(s) that the e-mail contains sensitive information. Similarly, allegation-related

written correspondence to other staff members may contain alleger identifying

information if the receiving staff member(s) has/have a need-to-know. Notwithstanding,

it is good practice to refrain from including alleger identifying information in internal email messages and in written correspondence to other staff members, if at all possible.

Additionally, the staff should only send correspondence to the alleger over the Internet at

the alleger’s request, since NRC cannot protect the information during transmission on

the Internet and there is the possibility that the transmission could be intercepted (see

Manual Section 3.3.c.8 for additional information regarding the handling of allegation

information (SUNSI) and Manual Section 3.2.f regarding the receipt of allegations via email).

• Care should be taken when using previous allegation letters to develop new letters.

Inadvertent alleger identity releases can occur when alleger identifying information from

a previous allegation letter is not deleted during the development of a new letter to a

different alleger.

• Care should be taken when sending and responding to allegation-related issues via

electronic mail. Inadvertent alleger identity releases can occur when the “auto fill”

function of Microsoft Outlook enters the name of an individual who should not have

access to the allegation-related matter and the sender does not verify that only

appropriate individuals are on the e-mail distribution list before sending the e-mail.

4.2 Limitations on Alleger Identity Protection 

4.2.a Circumstances that May Require NRC to Disclose an Alleger’s Identity

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

of the limitations on the NRC’s ability to protect his or her identity. Allegers are notified of 

the limitations on NRC’s ability to protect their identity during initial receipt of the allegation 

or other discussion with the alleger prior to the issuance of an acknowledgment letter, if 

possible, or in an acknowledgment letter (after initial receipt of the allegation), or in a 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

95

Confidentiality Agreement (if the alleger has been granted confidential source status). (8.8 

Handbook, Sections II.F.12(a) and II.F.12(b)) 

The alleger is informed that NRC may be compelled to disclose his or her identity under one 

or more of the following circumstances: (8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.12(c)) 

• Disclosure is necessary because of an overriding health or safety issue. (8.8 Handbook,

Section II.F.12(c)(i))

• 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.12(c)(ii))

• Disclosure is necessary to support a hearing on an enforcement matter. (8.8 Handbook,

Section II.F.12(c)(iii))

• Disclosure is necessary to further a wrongdoing investigation. (8.8 Handbook, Section

II.F.12(c)(iv))

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

protecting the alleger’s identity. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.12(c)(v)) [This criterion

would apply in instances where an alleger has become “widely known” in association

with a particular allegation concern or concerns (see Manual Section 4.2.f for guidance

regarding “widely known” allegers).]

• Disclosure is mandated by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). (8.8 Handbook,

Section II.F.12(c)(vi)) (see Manual Section 6.0 for FOIA guidance)

4.2.b Actions if Alleger Does Not Object to Identity Disclosure 

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 obtain resolution of the allegation, or 

otherwise serves the needs of the agency. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.12(d)) 

4.2.c Alleger Identity Disclosure Regarding a Discrimination Concern 

For allegations involving discrimination, the alleger is informed that NRC will disclose his or 

her identity to the licensee, the alleged discriminating entity (if not the licensee), or both, 

during an NRC investigation into the discrimination matter as it would otherwise be 

impossible to pursue such an investigation. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.12(e)) 

4.2.d Potential for Alleger Identity Disclosure Regarding a Wrongdoing 

Investigation 

For allegations involving wrongdoing, the alleger is informed that his or her identity may be 

disclosed at OI's discretion in order to pursue the investigation. In these instances, it is not 

necessary for OI to consult with the associated action office director in order 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.F.12(f))
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

96

4.2.e Obtaining Management Approval for Alleger Identity Release 

When the alleger has not agreed to identity release, and it is necessary for NRC to release 

the alleger’s identity for any of the reasons outlined in Manual Section 4.2.a, 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 Manual Section 4.5.e for guidance regarding identity disclosure. (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.F.12(g)) 

4.2.f “Widely Known” Alleger

4.2.f.1 What is a Widely Known Alleger? 

An alleger that is “widely known” is one who has publicly identified himself/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. If questions arise as to whether an 

alleger should be considered “widely known,” the AAA should be consulted. 

Additionally, when an action office determines for any reason, that it is necessary to 

release the identity of an alleger because the alleger is considered “widely known” in 

association with an allegation concern, the AAA is to be notified so that the alleger’s 

“widely known” status is reaffirmed before the identity release. In such instances, every 

effort should be made to notify the alleger that NRC has determined that he/she is

“widely known” in association with a particular allegation concern or concerns since NRC 

can no longer protect the alleger’s identity as the source of the concern(s).

4.2.f.2 FOIA Request Related to a Widely Known Alleger 

In response to a FOIA request that involves an alleger that is “widely known,” the OAC 

will notify the regional or headquarters office FOIA/PA Coordinator and the OIS FOIA, 

Privacy and Information Collections Branch that the AAA has approved the release of 

the alleger’s name. When the OIS FOIA Privacy and Information Collections Branch 

prepares the response to the FOIA requester, a note will be placed on top of the 

package that a widely known alleger is involved in the records being released. When 

the AAA (or designee) concurs in the FOIA response, the OAC will be notified so that the 

alleger may be contacted regarding the pending release of his/her name. The OAC will 

notify the OIA FOIA, Privacy and Information Collections Branch and the AAA after the 

alleger has been contacted. 

4.2.f.3 Consideration of Widely Known Alleger Status Regarding a 

Discrimination Concern Involving the DOL Process 

When a DOL/OSHA decision related to an alleger who has filed a discrimination 

complaint is appealed to a DOL Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), information related to 

the appeal is placed on the DOL OALJ website (http://www.oalj.dol.gov/). The 

appearance of the alleger’s name on the OALJ website may not include information 

indicating that the alleger also contacted the NRC, and therefore does not automatically 

require that the alleger be designated as "widely known." However, it is recognized that 

there could be other circumstances related to the appeal of a DOL/OSHA finding to the 

OALJ that would result in the alleger being declared “widely known” (for example, if the 

appeal documentation clearly indicates that the alleger filed concerns with the NRC). 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

97

These instances should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

4.2.f.4 Publicly Available Information about Court Proceedings - "Practical 

Obscurity" 

On occasion, a media report will surface indicating that a worker is involved in a court 

proceeding relating to actions taken by the licensee against the worker, allegedly for 

engaging in protected activity. Questions have arisen in this circumstance about 

whether the alleger should be declared "widely known." In most instances, the answer 

to this question is NO, based on a legal doctrine known as "practical obscurity." 

Practical obscurity refers to the principle that private information in public records is 

protected from disclosure as the result of practical barriers to access. If an alleger has 

filed a discrimination complaint in court, the court generally affords the complainant 

practical obscurity, and therefore, the alleger should not be considered widely known 

unless he/she (or his/her legal representative) specifically identifies the alleger in the 

media as the source of the concern. 

The above notwithstanding, the responsible office could decide, after considering factors 

related to the concern that acknowledging the alleger as the source of the concern would 

better serve the needs of the agency and the general public. If such a conclusion is 

reached, it would be appropriate to inform the alleger and/or his/her legal representative 

that NRC, if asked, intends to acknowledge the alleger as the concern source. 

4.2.g Notifying the Alleger about the Release of His/Her Identity 

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: (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.F.12(h)) 

 it is necessary to release the alleger’s identity to any organization, individual, or to the

public, for any of the reasons outlined in Manual Sections 4.2.a. and 4.2.b; (8.8

Handbook, Section II.F.12(h)(i)) The staff should consult with the appropriate regional

administrator or headquarters office director prior to the identity release.

 the alleger’s name or other personal identifier has already been released for any of the

reasons outlined in Manual Sections 4.2.a. and 4.2.b; (8.8 Handbook, Section

II.F.12(h)(ii)) or

 it is known that the alleger’s identity may be compromised or was released

inappropriately by NRC (see NRC MD 3.4, “Release of Information to the Public,”

Manual Sections 3.3.c.9(a) and 4.2.h for information regarding staff actions subsequent

to an inappropriate identity release). (8.8 Handbook, Section II.F.12(h)(iii))

4.2.h Actions Following an Inadvertent Alleger Identity Release 

If an alleger’s identity is inappropriately released to the public domain, actions in response to 

such an occurrence should be taken in three phases: 1.) contact the affected individuals; 2.) 

make NRC internal notifications; and 3.) complete corrective actions. 

 Contact the Affected Individuals
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

98

Contact the individuals involved in the identity release (i.e., the alleger and those 

individuals to whom the alleger’s identity was inappropriately released). The alleger 

should be contacted as soon as possible, preferably by telephone. Staff contacting the 

alleger should apologize for the identity release and inform him/her of the actions taken 

or to be taken to retrieve the information and limit any further release to the public. The 

staff contacting the alleger should inquire as to whether the alleger has any additional 

concerns because of the identity release (e.g., Does he/she believe the identity release 

will affect his/her employment/work environment or his/her willingness to raise additional 

concerns, or the willingness of others to raise concerns?). The individual(s) to whom the 

alleger’s identity was inadvertently released should be asked to return or destroy the 

information or delete it if it was sent electronically. 

As prescribed in Manual Section 4.2.g, MD 8.8 Handbook Section II.F.12(h) also 

prescribes that the alleger be notified of the inadvertent release in writing. If unable to 

contact the alleger by phone, written notification should be provided as soon as possible 

by either letter or e-mail. If responsible staff were able to contact the alleger by 

telephone about the identity release, written correspondence (letter or e-mail) describing 

what occurred and actions taken in response to the occurrence may be provided in the 

next written correspondence prescribed by the allegation process (acknowledgment, 

status, or closure letter). 

 Make NRC Internal Notifications

The AAA should be notified as soon as possible about the identity release. All such 

incidents must also be reported within 1 hour by clicking the "Report a Safety/Security 

Incident" button on the NRC internal website or calling ADM/DFS at 301-415-6666 as 

described in Manual Section 3.3.c.9(a). 

 Complete Corrective Actions

After making the initial notifications indicated above, the implementation of corrective 

actions established in response to the identity release should be tracked to closure via 

an appropriate regional office/headquarters office action item/corrective action tracking 

mechanism. 

4.2.i Potential Alleger Identity Disclosure Related to a Concern/Request 

Submitted Regarding 10 CFR 19.16(a) 

Whether or not an alleger’s identity is to be protected regarding a request for an inspection 

pursuant to 10 CFR 19.16(a) depends on whether or not the alleger has requested that 

his/her name and the name of other individuals appear in the information provided to the 

licensee or on any record published, released or made available by the Commission. A 10 

CFR 19.16(a) request for inspection is made available to the licensee by the action office. 

The names of the requestor and other individuals may be withheld from such a request if 

requested by the worker. If an allegation does not involve a written request for inspection 

under 10 CFR 19.16(a), no licensee notification is required. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

99

4.3 Considering Public Discussion of Specific Allegation-Related Information 

Typically, communication of information related to NRC’s evaluation and conclusion regarding 

an allegation is limited to the alleger who raised the concern and to a small number of NRC and 

licensee individuals (if the allegation involved an RFI) with a need-to-know and who participated 

in the evaluation. If the allegation involves a security concern, the communication of information 

may be further limited. This is in keeping with an important objective of the NRC allegation 

program to protect an alleger’s identity. In certain cases, however, dissemination of allegationrelated information to a broader audience has been necessary and has proven beneficial to 

obtaining a more comprehensive response. Although rare, such an approach directed by the 

ARB in appropriate circumstances can improve public confidence by more openly discussing 

program activities while continuing to protect the identity of the alleger. When appropriate, this 

ARB consideration should be made both with regard to advertising allegation 

inspection/investigation efforts and disseminating the results of an allegation evaluation. 

Manual Section 5.1.b.2 provides guidance for the ARB consideration of more public discussion 

of allegation program activities. 

Possible avenues for communicating the results of an allegation evaluation in a more public 

manner include, but are not limited to, NRC generic communications (e.g., RIS, information 

notice), the NRC’s public website (e.g., Allegation Program web page, press releases), 

inspection reports, or other regulatory documents. 

4.4 Advising an Alleger about Confidential Source Status 

4.4.a Advising an Alleger about Confidential Source Status

Most allegers accept the standard alleger identity protection provisions discussed in Manual 

Sections 4.1 and 4.2 and will provide the NRC with detail regarding their concern(s) on that 

basis. (Handbook 8.8, Section II.F.13(a)) Occasionally however, an alleger will decline to 

provide detailed information to NRC regarding his or her concern(s) and/or his or her 

identity, for fear of being identified as the information source. (Handbook 8.8, Section 

II.F.13(a)(i))

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 definitions of "identity protection," "confidentiality," and "confidential 

source" in the Manual Glossary.) (Handbook 8.8, Section II.F.13(a)(ii))) 

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. 

(Handbook 8.8, Section II.F.13(a)(iii)) 

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 Manual Section 4.5 and the standardized Confidentiality Agreement form in 

Manual Exhibit 5 for additional guidance related to the granting of confidential source 

status). (Handbook 8.8, Section II.F.13(a)(iv)) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

100

4.4.b Alleger Request for Confidential Source Status 

If the alleger requests confidential source status before providing information, the guidance 

in Manual Section 4.5 is to be followed. (Handbook 8.8, Section II.F.13(b)) 

4.4.c Alleger Refusal to Provide Information – Option for Subpoena 

Sometimes an alleger refuses to accept an offer of confidential source status and/or to 

provide relevant information. In such circumstances, NRC may consider issuance of a 

subpoena or other means to obtain needed information, if the NRC has the alleger’s contact 

information. (Handbook 8.8, Section II.F.13(c)) 

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 shall document the allegation in 

as much detail as possible, and 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. (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. 

(Handbook 8.8, Section II.F.13(d)) 

4.5 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 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 the NRC, this guidance also applies to other confidential sources established by the Office of 

Investigations (OI) during the course of a wrongdoing or discrimination investigation who are not 

considered to be allegers. For matters referred to the OIG as noted in Manual Section 5.6.i, the 

OIG follows its own guidance concerning the granting and revoking of confidentiality. (8.8 

Section IV, Preface) 

4.5.a General 

4.5.a.1 Commission Policy Statement on Confidentiality

On April 5, 1996, the Commission approved a revision to the policy on confidentiality, 

which sets forth agency wide 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 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 MD 8.8, the OI Investigative 

Procedures Manual, and this Manual provide for implementation of the Commission's 

policy statement. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.A.1) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

101

4.5.a.2 Confidential Source Status Is Not Granted Routinely

Although 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 NRC, or that confidential source status should be routinely granted, 

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.A.2) 

4.5.b Granting Confidential Source Status 

4.5.b.1 Determining Whether a Grant of Confidential Source Status is 

Warranted 

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 

Manual Exhibit 5). 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 

NRC or others may already have knowledge of the information. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

IV.B.1) If an alleger makes a request for confidentiality, the following information should

be obtained from the alleger to help determine whether or not the alleger may be 

granted confidential source status: 

• Has the alleger provided the information to anyone else? For example, is the

information already widely known, with the alleger as its source?

• Does NRC already know of the information, obviating the need to establish the

alleger as a confidential source?

• Does the alleger have a past record that would weigh either in favor of or against

granting confidential source status in this instance? For example, has the alleger

abused grants of confidential source status in the past?

• Is the information that the alleger is offering within the jurisdiction of NRC? (i.e.,

Should the alleger be referred to another agency?)

• Why does the alleger desire confidential source status? What would be the

consequences to the alleger if his/her identity was revealed?

• Does it appear that the alleger caused the condition or committed the violation and

could likely be subject to civil or criminal prosecution?

4.5.b.2 Considering an Offer of Confidentiality to an Alleger Who Has Not 

Requested Confidential Source Status 

Depending on the information gathered from an alleger who has not requested 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

102

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 (see Manual Sections 4.5.b.4 and 4.5.b.5) may offer confidential source 

status if an alleger is not providing information for fear of identity disclosure. In this 

instance, as on the occasion when an alleger requests confidentiality, pertinent 

information must be gathered, as noted in Manual Section 4.5.b.1, to determine whether 

or not a grant of confidential source status is warranted. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.B.2)

4.5.b.3 Information Provided to an Alleger Who Has Been Granted 

Confidential Source Status 

When confidential source status is granted, the alleger is to be provided information 

regarding the Confidentiality Agreement, the sensitivity of the information the alleger is 

providing (including the potential that the information itself could reveal the source’s 

identity), how the alleger’s confidentiality is controlled within NRC, and how NRC will 

respond to questions about the alleger’s confidential source status. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section IV.B.3) The following points should be discussed with the alleger: 

• Explore the sensitivity of the information being provided by the alleger with a view to

determining whether the information itself could reveal the source's identity.

• Inform the alleger that because of the tight controls imposed on the release of his/her

identity within NRC, he/she should not expect others within NRC to be aware of

his/her confidential source status. Therefore, the alleger would be responsible for

bringing his/her confidential source status to the attention of other NRC personnel if

the alleger desires similar confidential source treatment by these personnel when

information is provided to them.

• Inform the alleger that if inquiries are made regarding his/her status as a confidential

source, NRC will neither confirm nor deny his/her status.

• Review the "Confidentiality Agreement" (see Manual Exhibit 5) with the alleger if it

temporarily is not possible to provide him/her with a copy of the agreement.

4.5.b.4 Authority to Grant Confidential Source Status 

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 office official. Authorization can be prearranged as circumstances warrant, 

possibly involving a meeting with the alleger. The Executive Director for Operations 

(EDO) and the Director of 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 

Special Agents in Charge (formerly Field Office Directors) have received this designation 

from the EDO or the Director of OI.) (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.B.4)

4.5.b.5 Documentation of Authority to Grant Confidential Source Status 

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 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

103

grant confidential source status must be formally documented by the action office, such 

as in an internal regional or headquarters office procedure, in a memorandum to the 

Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) or, in the case of OI, in accordance with the OI 

Investigative Procedures Manual. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.B.5) 

4.5.b.6 Temporary Grant of Confidential Source Status 

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 

approximately 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 Special Agent in Charge (formerly field office director) will determine 

whether confidentiality should continue (see Manual Section 4.5.c). 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 OAC or, in the case of 

OI, in accordance with the OI Investigative Procedures Manual. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

IV.B.6)

4.5.b.7 Requirement to Inform Senior Management when Confidential 

Source Status Has Been Granted 

Office directors, regional administrators, and in the case of OI, Special Agents in Charge 

(formerly field office directors), shall be informed of each grant of confidential source 

status issued by their office under a delegation of authority. These senior officials also 

shall approve any variance from the standard confidentiality agreement and each denial 

of confidential source status. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.B.7)

4.5.b.8 Maintenance of Confidentiality Agreements and Related 

Documentation 

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 its OI Investigative 

Procedures Manual. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.B.8)

4.5.b.9 Actions to Support the Protection of Confidential Source Status 

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). (8.8 

Handbook, Section IV.B.9)
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

104

4.5.b.10 Actions if Confidential Source Status Has Been Breached or 

Jeopardized 

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 (see Management Directive, 3.4, “Release 

of Information to the Public,” Manual Sections 3.3.c.9(a) and 4.2.h for staff actions 

subsequent to an inappropriate identity release). (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.B.10)

4.5.b.11 OI Granting of Confidential Source Status 

4.5.b.11(a) OI Grant of Confidential Source Status to an Alleger 

If OI receives a request for confidential source status from an alleger who is already 

known to the regional or headquarters office allegation staff and/or responsible 

technical staff, OI will forward the allegation information and the name of the 

prospective confidential source to the action office OAC who will then be the primary 

point of contact with the alleger. The granting of confidential source status by the 

action office will then be considered in accordance with Manual Sections 4.5.b.1 

through 4.5.b.7. In some instances however, based on an alleger’s request and/or 

on a need for OI to recruit and maintain the alleger as an OI confidential source for 

investigative purposes, OI may directly grant confidential source status to the alleger. 

On these occasions, OI will forward the information related to the alleger’s concerns 

to the action office OAC so that allegation tracking may be initiated, but the name of 

the alleger/OI confidential source will not be disclosed to the action office by OI. OI 

will be the point of contact for an alleger recruited by OI as a confidential source and 

will be responsible for communicating with the alleger, as agreed upon, including the 

distribution of allegation acknowledgment, status, and closure letters, if appropriate. 

Action office staff may be requested to support OI in the development of allegation 

correspondence to the alleger. Any additional contacts with the alleger/OI 

confidential source will be at OI’s discretion and in accordance with the OI 

Investigative Procedures Manual. As requested, the OAC will coordinate with OI 

regarding communications with the alleger to ensure that sensitive information is not 

compromised. 

4.5.b.11(b) OI Recruiting of Confidential Sources Who Are Not Allegers 

OI may also recruit as a confidential source, an individual who is not providing an 

allegation to NRC but who is providing testimony and/or other evidence as a witness 

in a matter of alleged wrongdoing. It is recognized that OI will apply the general 

guidance provided in Manual Sections 4.5.b.1 through 4.5.b.7 in considering whether 

to grant confidential source status to the individual. Any additional contacts with the 

OI confidential source will be at OI’s discretion and in accordance with the OI 

Investigative Procedures Manual. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

105

4.5.c Revocation of Confidential Source Status 

4.5.c.1 Authority to Revoke Confidential Source Status 

A decision to revoke confidential source status can only be made by the Commission, 

the EDO, or the Director of OI, depending on the office that granted confidential source 

status. The Commission may revoke a grant made by any office reporting to the EDO or 

to the Commission. The EDO may revoke grants of confidential source status made by 

offices reporting to the EDO. The Director of OI may only revoke grants of confidential 

source status originally made by OI. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.C.1) 

4.5.c.2 Circumstances Warranting Revocation of Confidential Source Status

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 NRC. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.C.2) 

4.5.c.3 Contacting Alleger Prior to Revocation of Confidential Source Status

Before revoking confidential source status, 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.C.3) All written 

communications with a confidential source who requests or requires a response shall be 

sent by certified mail or an alternate carrier that requires verification of receipt. 

4.5.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. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section IV.D)

4.5.e Official Disclosures 

4.5.e.1 Disclosure to the Licensee or Other Affected Organization 

If it is necessary because of an overriding safety issue to release the identity of a 

confidential source outside NRC and the source agrees to this disclosure, the EDO will 

be consulted before the 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.E.1) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

106

4.5.e.2 Other Disclosures 

4.5.e.2(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, NRC will seek to minimize the 

disclosure through protective orders or other means. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

IV.E.2(a))

4.5.e.2(b) NRC Adjudicatory Bodies 

The Commission, as the ultimate adjudicatory authority within 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 Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel presiding officer to order disclosure of the identity 

of a confidential source must be automatically submitted to the Commission for 

review. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.E.2(b)(i)) 

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 crossexamination will be violated if he or she is not provided the names, and whether 

disclosure is necessary to complete the record. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.E.2(b)(ii)) 

The Commission notes that 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. (8.8 

Handbook, Section IV.E.2(b)(iii)) 

4.5.e.2(c) Congress 

Disclosure to Congress may be required in response to a written congressional 

request. The Commission will attempt to have any such disclosure limited to the 

extent possible, such as by ensuring that the request is made by Congress in its 

official oversight capacity, by hand-delivering the requested information, and by 

attempting to satisfy the request by not revealing the identity of the confidential 

source. 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. The Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA) will 

provide support to the staff in responding to such a request. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

IV.E.2(c))

4.5.e.2(d) Federal and State Agencies 

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 NRC promised when it granted confidential source status, the action office OAC 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

107

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 of 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 the following 

paragraph. 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 NRC. 

(8.8 Handbook, Section IV.E.2(d)(i) 

As an exception to the discussion in the above paragraph regarding efforts to notify a 

confidential source about the need to release his/her identity to another federal or 

state agency, when OI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are pursuing the same 

matter or when OI is working with another law enforcement agency, the EDO or the 

Director of 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section IV.E.2(d)(ii)) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

108

5.0 Allegation Evaluation 

5.1 Allegation Review Board (ARB) 

An ARB is a board established by regional administrators and headquarters office directors to 

determine the safety significance and appropriate NRC follow up actions for each allegation. 

(8.8 Handbook, Section II.I) 

5.1.a Participants and Functions 

5.1.a.1 ARB Quorum

An ARB consists of a chairperson (an action office director, division director, deputy 

director, or senior manager designee), preferably with oversight responsibility related to 

the licensee that is the subject of the allegation, 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 identified potential 

suspected 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 and/or an OGC representative or regional 

counsel are 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.1(a)) 

5.1.a.2 Initial ARB Schedule 

Normally, an initial ARB meeting is to be held within 30 calendar days of allegation 

receipt by the agency. However, when an allegation is determined to involve an 

overriding safety issue, an ARB should be held as soon as possible. [Note: 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 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.] (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.1(b)) 

When an allegation is transferred to the technical staff by OIG, the date the allegation is 

received by the action office from OIG will be recorded in AMS as the allegation receipt 

date. In such instances, if the identity of the alleger is known, the acknowledgment letter 

to the alleger (see Manual Section 5.3) should relate both the date that OIG received the 

alleger’s information and the date the action office received the allegation documentation 

from OIG. 

5.1.a.3 OAC/Allegation Coordination Staff ARB Functions 

The primary function of the OAC in attendance at the ARB is to advise the ARB on 

allegation process and policy matters and to ensure that the actions approved by the 

ARB are reflective of the direction provided in MD 8.8, this Manual, and other applicable 

guidance documents. Action office allegation coordination staff will document the 

decisions of the ARB and use the ARB meeting minutes to update the AMS database. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

109

The action office allegation coordination staff will ensure that ARB attendees are 

informed of specific actions assigned to them or their organizations. A hard copy of the 

ARB meeting minutes is placed in the allegation file. 

5.1.b ARB Proceedings 

5.1.b.1 Pre-ARB Preparation and Actions to Facilitate ARB Discussion 

As indicated in Manual Section 3.3.a.5, it is preferable that, prior to the ARB meeting, 

responsible action office staff and management have reviewed the allegation receipt 

documentation (or other pertinent information, if the ARB is being reconvened for a 

particular allegation) to facilitate ARB discussion. To further contribute to the efficiency 

and effectiveness of the ARB meeting and to facilitate the recording of decisions made 

by the ARB, it is recommended that prior to the ARB meeting, responsible action office 

staff submit to the OAC, on forms designated by the action office, an electronic version 

of the proposed courses of action for each allegation to be discussed at the ARB. The 

submittal of this information, coupled with the use of overhead projection capabilities, will 

enable the ARB meeting attendees to collectively view and discuss proposed courses of 

action, and accept or modify them as appropriate. A sample ARB decision record form 

is provided in Manual Exhibit 6. 

5.1.b.2 ARB Discussion and Proposed Actions 

The ARB accomplishes the following (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.2(a)): 

 Considers the safety significance of each allegation concern. (8.8 Handbook, Section

II.I.2(a)(i)) - The intent of a safety significance determination by the ARB is to

provide perspective with regard to assigned follow-up actions, i.e., concerns 

involving higher safety significance should prompt a quicker response. The safety 

significance determination applies primarily to technical matters and should consist 

of a brief statement describing potential safety implications of the concern, 

presuming the concern is true. As an example, the safety significance determination 

for an allegation concern about a leaking nuclear gauge might state....”If true, a 

worker standing near the gauge for a full work shift could receive unnecessary dose.” 

It is preferred that comparative qualifiers (e.g., low, medium, high) not be used to 

describe safety significance because they are relative and lack description of the 

safety issue. In assessing each concern for safety significance, the ARB also 

assesses whether the concern may have generic implications, and as appropriate, 

considers notification of other headquarters or regional offices, processing a TIA or 

TAR from another headquarters or regional office, or transfer to another 

headquarters or regional office. In allegation context, a generic concern is one that 

affects multiple facilities and has the potential to affect others, or involves a structure, 

system, component, or process that may be used at multiple NRC-regulated facilities 

(e.g., a concern about a defect in a product supplied by a vendor to the nuclear 

industry). If there is disagreement regarding the oversight responsibility for an 

allegation with generic implications, the AAA should be consulted. 

 Assigns follow-up actions and estimated completion times for concern evaluation

consistent with the safety/risk significance of the allegation concerns, as determined

by the ARB. Assigns actions for alleger feedback as prescribed by the allegation
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

110

process and supplemental alleger feedback, as deemed appropriate. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.I 2(a)(ii)) 

 Assigns responsibility for allegation evaluation, both within and outside the action

office, as appropriate. Allegation evaluation is accomplished by technical review,

inspection, by requesting feedback from the affected licensee via a Request for

Information (RFI) or another NRC regional or headquarters office via a TIA or TAR,

by obtaining the results of investigations or evaluations conducted by OI, DOJ, DOL,

a State agency, or another Federal agency, or by any combination of these actions.

The basis for an ARB decision to send an allegation-related RFI to the licensee shall

be documented in the ARB meeting summary. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.2(a)(iii))

 Provides guidance and direction to assigned action office staff. (8.8 Handbook,

Section II.I.2(a)(iv))

• 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 (See Manual Section 5.2.f

and NUREG/BR-0313, Rev.1, “Pre-Investigation ADR Program.”) (8.8 Part I, Section

II.I.2(a)(v)) [NRC public website link: http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr/pre-invest-brochure.pdf] 

 Facilitates discussions with responsible NSIR or regional security inspection

personnel regarding the proper categorization of security-related allegation concerns

for the purpose of 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

Manual Section 5.9.g.4 for guidance regarding the determination of the appropriate

security information category.) (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.2(a)(vi))

 Facilitates discussions of allegations involving alleged wrongdoing and discrimination

with OI, including the determination of investigative priorities. Examples of alleged

wrongdoing include an assertion that a procedure required to be followed to fulfill a

required nuclear safety function was intentionally violated, or that a fraudulent or

counterfeit part has been supplied or used intentionally as a replacement for a part that

must be appropriately qualified. Manual Section 5.7 provides detail regarding the

requirement for staff to notify OI of allegations of potential wrongdoing and to engage

OI to coordinate follow-up actions related to wrongdoing and discrimination issues.

The ARB assures that a potential violation describing the technical/legal basis for the

alleged wrongdoing is provided to OI prior to 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 (Assist)), to support the staff in obtaining additional

information regarding the allegation. The ARB may also 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 personnelrelated information). However, typically this action should not be considered before

an attempt is made to gather more information directly from the alleger or via

inspection activities or via an OI Assist to Staff. The ARB can also request

assistance from OI to obtain testimony regarding other matters, including feedback
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

111

related to the condition of a licensee's safety culture or safety conscious work 

environment. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.2(a)(vii))

With regard to an ARB request for an OI Assist, the most common circumstance of 

this type involves a technical matter for which an alleger or an NRC staff member 

identifies that wrongdoing may have occurred. The ARB evaluates the evidence 

provided and concludes, with the agreement of the attending OI representative, that 

additional information must be gathered in order to determine if there is specific 

indication of potential wrongdoing (which is needed in order for OI to open a full 

investigation). In many cases, the technical staff is asked to perform additional 

inspection in an effort to obtain the additional detail related to the matter of potential 

wrongdoing. Less frequently, if the ARB determines that OI’s expertise is needed in 

order to obtain the additional information, OI is requested to open an OI Assist. In 

rare instances, after the OAC and responsible staff have gathered information from 

an alleger making a claim of discrimination and Regional Counsel (or OGC) indicates 

that there is insufficient data to make a prima facie call, OI may also be asked to 

conduct an Assist to gather additional information in an effort to determine whether 

an alleger has articulated a prima facie showing of discrimination (see Manual 

Section 5.2.a.1(a)) 

It is suggested that OI be provided with source documentation specifically related to 

the matter of alleged wrongdoing, if available. For example, if the alleged 

wrongdoing matter involved an alleged willful violation of a procedure, the applicable 

version of the procedure should be obtained and provided to OI as the basis 

document. This will help assure that the investigation is appropriately focused and 

that the violation can be legally supported. 

 Facilitates discussion of alleged wrongdoing and discrimination matters with OI at

various stages of review, as necessary. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.2(a)(viii))

Additionally, for any concern involving alleged harassment, intimidation, retaliation,

or discrimination for engaging in NRC protected activity, the ARB should discuss how

the matter may have affected the willingness of employees at the facility-in-question

to raise safety concerns and consider appropriate follow up action (e.g., RFI to the

licensee, initiation of a new investigation, augmentation of an ongoing investigation,

chilling effect letter). See Manual Section 5.2 for more discussion of allegation

process/ARB considerations with regard to matters of alleged discrimination and

potential chilling effect.

 Requests legal reviews by representatives of OGC or regional counsel, as

appropriate. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.2(a)(ix))

 Considers, on very rare occasion, and after discussion with the alleger, whether

advertising that inspection and/or investigation efforts are allegation-related would,

while still protecting the alleger’s identity, significantly improve the staff’s evaluation

by affording facility employees an opportunity to bring pertinent information to the

NRC’s attention (since public dissemination of allegation-related information is not a

standard course of action). Similarly, on very rare occasion, 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
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

112

assessment publicly would improve public confidence in the allegation program or 

otherwise serve 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 such an 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.2(a)(x) 

 Establishes written minutes of the ARB meeting documenting issues discussed,

meeting participants, safety significance assessments provided, investigation

priorities established, and actions assigned by the ARB (8.8 Handbook, Section

II.I.2(a)(xi)) to effect allegation evaluation and closure, including the scheduling of

subsequent ARB meetings, as deemed appropriate. 

5.1.b.3 Exclusion of OIG-Related Issues from ARB Discussion 

If an allegation also contains concerns about alleged wrongdoing or misconduct issues 

on the part of NRC staff or NRC contractors, the issues are not to be discussed at an

ARB meeting. As indicated in Manual Section 3.3.c.7(g), documentation related to such 

matters is to be forwarded to the appropriate office director or regional administrator for 

review/referral to OIG, and excluded from the allegation file. 

5.1.b.4 Reconvening the ARB 

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. Additionally, the ARB should be reconvened 6 months after initial 

receipt, and approximately every 4 months thereafter to review an allegation that is older 

than 6 months, unless the only open concern(s) relates 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/priority discussions with action office management. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.I.2(b))

5.1.b.5 Taking Credit for Another NRC Meeting at Which a Decision is Made 

Regarding an Allegation as an ARB Meeting 

5.1.b.5(a) Taking Credit for Another Action Office Meeting as an ARB 

Meeting 

If a decision is made at another action office meeting regarding the processing of an 

allegation, the action office may take credit for the meeting as a periodic ARB 

meeting if the meeting was attended by personnel forming an ARB quorum as 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

113

defined in Manual Section 5.1.a.1. As an example, if a determination is made that 

the priority of an ongoing OI investigation should be changed at a periodic meeting 

between a Regional Administrator and staff with the regional OI SAIC (often referred 

to as an OI Prioritization Meeting), the meeting may be credited as an ARB provided 

the attendees at the meeting form an ARB quorum. NRR, NRO, and NSIR have a 

similar discussion with OI every 3-4 months prior to a scheduled ARB meeting. The 

allegation-related decisions made at such a meeting (in the example, to change the 

OI investigation priority) should be documented on the standard form used by the 

regional or headquarters office to document ARB decisions, and recorded in AMS by 

the OAC. 

5.1.b.5(b) Taking Credit for an Enforcement Panel as an ARB Meeting 

If NRC evaluation of an allegation prompts the scheduling of an enforcement panel 

(e.g., if staff review results in the pursuit of escalated enforcement action, or for an 

OI preliminary investigation outbrief), the decisions made at the enforcement panel 

may be credited as ARB decisions, provided they relate directly to the allegation. 

The allegation-related decisions made at the enforcement panel may be documented 

on the standard form used by the regional or headquarters office to document ARB 

decisions, or on the standard form used to document enforcement panel decisions, 

as long as the standard form used to document enforcement panel decisions records 

similar information to that recorded on the standard form used to document ARB 

decisions. In either case, the fact that the meeting constituted an ARB meeting and 

the allegation-related decisions made at the meeting should be recorded in AMS by 

the OAC. 

5.1.b.6 “E-Mail” or “Walk-around” or "Virtual" ARB Meeting 

Events or personnel availability issues will occasionally make it difficult to physically 

gather appropriate staff in a conference room for the purpose of conducting an ARB 

meeting. If it should become necessary to obtain an ARB decision on short notice in 

order to move forward the evaluation of an allegation, and it is not possible to physically 

convene the ARB, an ARB decision may be reached by contacting the members of the 

ARB individually to obtain their approval for the proposed action. Such an effort is 

usually accomplished by the OAC (since OAC participation is required to form an ARB 

quorum), and may be done electronically (by e-mail) or in-person (by discussing the 

proposed ARB decision individually with each ARB member). Once all of the ARB 

members have been contacted and have concurred with the proposed action, the 

individual coordinating the “e-mail” or “walk-around” or "virtual" ARB (usually the OAC) 

should inform the ARB members of the completed ARB decision, denoting all of the staff 

members who were part of the ARB, and document the ARB decision for the allegation 

file. (It is recommended that this approach only be considered for routine, noncontroversial decisions (e.g., a decision to add a recently submitted allegation concern to 

an already planned inspection activity). It is not recommended that this approach be 

employed for complex or controversial allegation matters. In these situations, every 

effort should be made to hold the ARB in its normal setting to facilitate open discussion.) 

5.1.b.7 Considering ARB Discussion of an Alleger’s Interview Transcript or 

of the Results of an OI Assist to Staff 

If an OI investigation has been initiated regarding an allegation involving an alleger 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

114

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 so that it may be 

reviewed 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.2(c)) Similarly, if 

a previous ARB decision resulted in the opening of an OI Assist to Staff to determine 

whether a full investigation is warranted (i.e., whether a specific indication of potential 

wrongdoing exists), the ARB should reconvene to discuss the results of OI’s Assist. 

5.1.b.8 Documenting ARB Decisions in AMS 

The ARB chairperson makes the final decisions regarding the actions proposed during 

the ARB meeting and provides final approval for the action assignments. After each 

ARB, the OAC shall document the actions assigned and decisions recorded and 

approved by the ARB shall be documented in the allegation file and entered them into 

the AMS database by the OAC. This course of action provides reasonable assurance 

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 decisions, particularly those who are assigned 

specific actions, resident inspectors, and non-resident inspectors, as appropriate. (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.I.2(d)) 

5.1.c Documentation of ARB Minutes/Decisions 

5.1.c.1 Content of ARB Meeting Minutes 

The minutes for each ARB meeting should identify the following: 

 Allegation number

 Meeting date

 Participants

 Purpose of the ARB

 Plant(s)/facilities affected, including generic application and implications

 Actions assigned and schedules for the assigned actions to provide feedback to the

alleger, and to evaluate and close the allegation

 Assessment of the safety significance of each concern, and particularly those

determined to require immediate regulatory action

 Security concern category (if a concerns is security-related) for the purpose of

determining how much detail may be provided external to NRC (see Manual Section

5.9.g.4)

 Priority level for an OI investigation and the rationale for the priority assigned, or the

rationale for not conducting an OI investigation, as appropriate

 Proposed technical reviews, inspections, and/or OI investigations or assists

 Rationale for requesting information from the licensee via an RFI or for referring an

allegation concern to another agency or external entity for review. [Note: The ARB

may, on occasion, conclude that the licensee or external entity should be informed

about a concern but not require the licensee or external entity to respond to the
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

115

concern because the concern is vague, lacks specificity, or is unclear in its 

association with NRC-regulated activity. This approach should only be considered 

on rare occasion. As a general rule, if a submitted concern meets the NRC’s 

definition of an allegation, however vague, and it is possible to inspect the concern, 

an effort should be made to evaluate the concern either by inspection or by 

requesting feedback from the licensee or other appropriate entity. Additionally, the 

fact that an allegation is submitted anonymously does not provide sufficient 

justification for not requesting feedback from a licensee or other appropriate entity.] 

 Basis for an ARB decision to submit an allegation-related RFI to the licensee if one

or more of the criteria for taking such action are not met or if one of the conditions

inhibiting an RFI to the licensee applies (see Manual Sections 5.6.d.2, 5.6.d.3, and

5.6.d.4)

 Comments/positions provided by OGC or regional counsel

 Potential actions in response to a history of inadequate RFI responses from the

licensee (see Manual Section 5.6.d.8(c)(2)).

 Indications of a chilling effect or a potential safety conscious work environment

problem (if applicable)

 Basis for subsequent ARB meetings

This information should be documented on forms designated by the action office for this 

purpose. A sample ARB decision record form is provided in Manual Exhibit 6. 

5.1.c.2 Approval of ARB Meeting Minutes 

The ARB chairperson should approve the minutes, either by signing or initialing the ARB 

decision record, or by including an electronic note on the ARB decision record indicating 

that the ARB members (including the chairperson) agree with the ARB meeting minutes 

and assigned actions included on the form. 

5.1.c.3 Distribution of ARB Meeting Minutes 

The OAC sends copies of the minutes to the ARB meeting participants. If OI or OGC (or 

regional counsel) was unable to participate in an ARB meeting, the minutes shall also be 

sent to the appropriate staff in OI and OGC (or regional counsel). 

5.2 ARB Consideration of Discrimination Concerns and Chilling Effect/Chilled Work 

Environment Issues 

5.2.a ARB Discussions Involving Allegations of Discrimination 

5.2.a.1 Prima Facie Determination and Early ADR Offer 

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 

the Manual Glossary). 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, Rev. 1, “Pre-Investigation ADR Program”). (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.I.3(a)) [NRC public website link: http://www.nrc.gov/about-
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

116

nrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr/pre-investigation.html] 

5.2.a.1(a) Responsibility for Prima Facie Determination 

Regional Counsel (for Regional allegations) and OGC (for NRC Headquarters 

allegations) are responsible for determining whether an alleger has provided a 

sufficient pattern of facts to establish a prima facie showing of potential 

discrimination. This conclusion is usually provided by Regional Counsel/OGC at an 

ARB meeting. If Regional Counsel/OGC is unable to attend the ARB meeting at 

which the determination of a prima facie showing is discussed, the ARB will assign 

an action to Regional Counsel/OGC to evaluate the facts provided by the alleger and 

make a prima facie determination. 

When receiving an allegation, NRC staff members are asked to obtain as much 

information as possible about the concerns raised by the alleger. When an alleger 

raises a discrimination concern, suggested questions for staff receiving the allegation 

include questions that relate to the determination of a prima facie showing of 

potential discrimination. While it is appropriate for the technical staff to ask such 

questions and record the alleger’s response (some regional/headquarters offices 

have developed forms for recording the alleger’s responses to the prima facie 

questions), it is to be emphasized that recording the answers to the prima facie 

questions by a technical staff member receiving the allegation does not “establish” 

prima facie. The final conclusion regarding a prima facie showing is made only by 

Regional Counsel/OGC. 

Normally, the OAC and/or responsible technical staff will gather sufficient information 

from the alleger to allow Regional Counsel (or OGC) to determine whether a prima 

facie showing of potential discrimination has been articulated. However, on rare 

occasion, after the OAC and/or responsible technical staff complete efforts to obtain 

as much information from the alleger as possible and after Regional Counsel (or 

OGC) has reviewed that information, there may not be sufficient detail to make a 

definitive prima facie call. In such instances, the ARB may conclude that additional 

effort is needed, using OI’s expertise by way of an OI Assist, to gather information to 

enable NRC to make the prima facie call. If an OI Assist is employed for this 

purpose, the reason should be well documented in the allegation file, making clear 

that an offer of Early ADR would not be precluded if the alleger was to provide OI 

sufficient additional information to enable Regional Counsel (or OGC) to make the 

prima facie call. Such documentation will clearly differentiate this effort from that of 

an interview with the alleger during the course of a full OI discrimination investigation 

after a prima facie call has already been established (in the latter case, an Early ADR 

offer would not be an option, since OI had already opened a full investigation and 

has conducted substantive investigative activity related to a prima facie case of 

alleged discrimination – see Manual Section 5.2.a.3). 

5.2.a.1(b) Causation/Nexus – The 4th Prima Facie Question 

With regard to the pattern of facts that must be presented by the alleger in order to 

establish a prima facie showing of potential discrimination, the first three items are 

relatively straight forward (i.e., What was the protected activity? What was the 

adverse action? Did the person(s) who took the adverse action know about the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

117

protected activity?) The last prima facie question is more subjective, and asks the 

alleger to describe the causal link (also referred to as the "nexus") between the 

protected activity and the adverse personnel action. To illustrate, temporal proximity 

is the simplest example to describe. If an alleger’s employment is terminated within 

a day or two of raising a safety concern, a nexus between the raising of the safety 

concern and the employment termination is clearly indicated. If an alleger claims 

that his/her employment was terminated due to a safety concern that he/she raised 5 

years ago, although all other facts must be evaluated, it would be more difficult for 

Regional Counsel/OGC to conclude that there was a nexus between the protected 

activity and the adverse action. In order to establish prima facie, Regional 

Counsel/OGC only have to reach a conclusion that the protected activity was likely to 

have been a contributing factor to the adverse personnel action. Regional 

Counsel/OGC do not have to conclude that the protected activity was a significant or 

motivating factor. 

5.2.a.1(c) Is Self-Declaration of Fatigue Related to Fitness-for-Duty 

Considered Protected Activity? 

NRC RIS 2002-07, “Clarification of NRC Requirements Applicable to Worker Fatigue 

and Self-Declarations of Fitness-for-Duty,” provides guidance on the handling of 

circumstances wherein a worker declares himself/herself unfit for duty due to 

excessive fatigue. On occasion, in response to a worker’s declaration that he/she is 

unfit for duty due to fatigue, a licensee has taken disciplinary action against the 

worker, most often because the licensee believes that the worker is abusing licensee 

policies through excessive requests for leave. When such circumstances occur, and 

the worker submits a discrimination concern to the NRC, a common question has 

emerged as to whether the self-declaration that the worker is unfit for duty due to 

fatigue constitutes protected activity. 

NRC provided clarifying information in response to the issuance of RIS 2002-07 

indicating that self-declaration of unfitness for duty due to fatigue can be a protected 

activity when there is a good faith effort by the worker to comply with 10 CFR Part 

26. The RIS was intended to provide protection for workers who are being

overworked and are fatigued through no fault of their own. As an example, if a 

worker declares that he/she is too tired to work because he/she is being asked to 

work a 12-hour shift for the 14th consecutive day, it would be reasonable to assume 

that the worker made such a declaration in good faith. However, a self-declaration of 

fatigue does not protect a worker from being untruthful or negligent. If the licensee 

makes a reasonable determination that the worker was negligent with respect to 

maintaining his/her fitness-for-duty, the worker is not immune from disciplinary 

action.

5.2.a.2 Exceptions to Offering Early ADR and Assignment of Tentative OI 

Investigation Priority 

Exceptions to offering Early ADR to the alleger should be rare and shall be approved by 

the Director of 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 Manual Section 5.7.a.5(c), for later reference, if Early 

ADR is not used or is unsuccessful. A tentative investigation priority, if assigned at the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

118

ARB, should be determined without regard to whether DOL is separately investigating 

the allegation of discrimination. The ARB minutes must document the rationale for the 

assigned priority. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.3(b)) 

5.2.a.3 Determination of Action Subsequent to Early ADR Offer 

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/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/prospective employer, or if the alleger or licensee has 

been unresponsive to the offer of Early ADR, 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 follow-up ARB meeting after knowledge of the 

unsuccessful Early ADR result has been established. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.I.3(c)) 

Normally, if Early ADR is not used or is unsuccessful, the OI investigator assigned to 

initiate a discrimination investigation will contact the alleger to discuss his/her interest in 

participating in the investigation. On rare occasion, if the alleger is to be contacted for 

other reasons in the same time frame, another staff member (e.g., the OAC) may be 

requested to ask the alleger during that discussion about his/her interest in participating 

in a discrimination investigation. In either case, if the alleger indicates an interest in 

participating in a discrimination investigation, the arrangement of an initial interview with 

the alleger would be accomplished by OI. Once an investigation is initiated by OI and 

substantive investigative activity has been conducted, the offer of Early ADR is no longer 

an option. 

5.2.a.4 Review of Alleger Transcript (if OI Investigation is Initiated) 

For allegations of alleged discrimination, the transcript of an OI interview with the alleger 

should be provided to the OAC, so that it may be reviewed by the OAC and responsible 

technical staff, as appropriate, to determine if additional technical concerns or additional 

information related to existing technical concerns were provided, or if additional 

discussion with OI is appropriate as a result of information presented by the alleger 

during the interview. As necessary, another ARB may be convened to discuss the need 

for further action by the technical staff regarding the alleger’s technical concerns or to 

discuss with OI whether information presented by the alleger during the interview might 

have an effect on the previously determined priority for the investigation. 

5.2.a.5 Discrimination Concern Terminology 

Discrimination, as it relates to matters under NRC jurisdiction, involves an adverse 

action taken by an employer against an employee, at least in part, for engaging in 

protected activity. There are a number of specific process and legal terms associated 

with the evaluation of a discrimination concern that may be referred to occasionally by 

involved individuals (e.g., the alleger, legal representatives for the licensee and/or the 

alleger, a DOL investigator, Regional Counsel/OGC). To support responsible NRC staff 

understanding of such terminology, a listing of the terms is provided below and the term 

definitions are provided in the Allegation Manual Glossary (Manual Section 9.0). 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

119

- Adverse Action 

- Burden of Proof (Standards of Evidence) 

- Chilling Effect 

- Discrimination 

- Disparate Treatment 

- Dual Motive 

- Early Alternative Dispute Resolution 

- Harassment and Intimidation 

- Hostile Work Environment 

- Pretext 

- Prima Facie Showing of Discrimination 

- Protected Activity 

- Retaliation 

- Safety Conscious Work Environment 

5.2.a.6 Failure-to-Hire Discrimination Concerns 

A failure-to-hire discrimination concern differs from other discrimination concerns in that 

it involves an alleger who is not an employee of the company that is being accused of 

the discriminatory action. For this reason, the threshold for establishing a prima facie 

showing of alleged discrimination in a failure-to-hire scenario is higher than prima facie 

requirements for a more conventional discrimination case (i.e., one involving an 

employee and his/her employer). Specifically, in order to establish a prima facie 

showing, an individual submitting a failure-to-hire discrimination claim must allege facts 

that, if true, would establish that: 

- the alleger engaged in protected activity 

- the alleger applied for and addressed the specifications for the position for which 

he/she applied 

- the employer knew of the alleger’s conduct, which constituted protected activity

- despite the alleger’s qualifications, he/she was rejected

- after the rejection, the position was filled or remained open and the employer 

continued to seek applicants from persons with the alleger’s qualifications 

- the alleger’s protected activity was a contributing factor in not being hired

Manual Exhibit 27 provides a list of items to be considered with regard to failure-to-hire 

discrimination concerns. Manual Exhibit 27 may be used to support prima facie 

determination or as an investigation tool, if prima facie has already been established. 

5.2.b NRC Response to Fears of Retaliation 

 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section

N.1)

 If 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

NRC has received information from an individual concerned that retaliation may occur
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

120

for engaging in protected activities. (8.8 Handbook, Section N.2) 

 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 management

be notified by either holding a documented meeting, a documented management

telephone call, or issuing a letter. 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, letters of this nature should not be docketed or otherwise

made publicly available, and if a meeting is held, it should be closed to the public. The

licensee should be asked to respond to the NRC’s concerns in writing. The licensee’s

response should not be docketed or otherwise submitted to the NRC Document Control

Desk (8.8 Handbook, Section N.3)

 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section N.4) (See Manual

Section 5.2.j for additional information. See definition of the term “chilling effect” in the

Glossary)

5.2.c NRC/DOL Interface and the DOL Review Process 

5.2.c.1 NRC/DOL Memorandum of Understanding 

The interface between NRC and DOL with regard to allegations of discrimination is 

described in the MOU between NRC and DOL. The most recent revision of the 

NRC/DOL MOU was issued on September 8, 1998 (see Manual Exhibit 7). The MOU 

establishes areas of cooperation between the NRC and DOL regarding the processing, 

investigation, and issuance of enforcement actions related to discrimination complaints 

filed with DOL in accordance with ERA Section 211. A flow chart depicting the parallel 

NRC and DOL review processes regarding matters of alleged discrimination under ERA 

Section 211 is provided in Manual Exhibit 8. 

5.2.c.2 The DOL Process 

5.2.c.2(a) Filing a Discrimination Complaint with DOL/OSHA 

5.2.c.2(a)(1) DOL/OSHA Filing Requirement 

An employee (or former/prospective employee) may file a complaint with 

DOL/OSHA if he/she has been subject to retaliation with unfavorable 

employment action because the worker was involved in protected activity. OSHA 

enforces several whistleblower laws, including those subject to NRC jurisdiction 

as encompassed by ERA Section 211. The NRC employee protection 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

121

regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 50.7, 10 CFR 30.7, etc.) were established following the 

enactment of ERA Section 211. Discrimination complaints under ERA Section 

211 must be filed in writing with DOL/OSHA within 180 days of the date of the 

alleged discriminatory action or the date the individual received any notice, in 

writing or otherwise, of an adverse personnel action, whichever occurred first. 

Such a complaint should be filed with the appropriate DOL OSHA Regional 

Office (i.e., the DOL/OSHA Regional Office associated with the geographical 

location of the employer). 

Contact information for the ten DOL OSHA Regional Offices is located at the 

following web link: http://www.osha.gov/html/RAmap.html

5.2.c.2(a)(2) DOL/OSHA Investigation 

After receiving a ERA Section 211 discrimination concern, DOL/OSHA initiates 

an evaluation to determine if the employer retaliated against the worker, i.e., if 

the protected activity was a contributing factor in its decision to take adverse 

employment action. Adverse actions may include: 

• Employment termination or layoff 

• Blacklisting 

• Performance appraisal downgrade 

• 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 non-supervisory position, less 

desirable work schedule, less desirable work location (isolated)) 

• Denial of overtime or promotion, or reassignment affecting the prospects 

for promotion 

• Constructive discipline, including verbal or written counseling 

• Denial of training 

• Failure to hire or rehire 

• Intimidation/harassment; hostile work environment 

• Failure to receive routine annual pay increase or bonus, other reduction in 

pay, hours, or benefits 

• Exclusion from activities to which co-workers are invited 

• Disparate treatment 

OSHA conducts an in-depth interview with each complainant to determine 

whether to conduct a full investigation. In order for OSHA to determine that 

retaliation took place, the investigation must reveal that: 

• The employee engaged in protected activity;

• An adverse action was taken against the employee after the employee

engaged in protected activity;

• The employer knew about the protected activity; and

• The protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s decision to

take the adverse action against the employee.

If the evidence supports the worker's claim of discrimination, OSHA will ask the 

employer to restore the worker's job, earnings and benefits, usually in the form of 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

122

a settlement between the worker and the employer. OSHA reviews settlement 

agreements between complainants and their employers reached during the 

investigative stage to ensure that they are fair, adequate, and reasonable, in the 

public interest, and that the worker's consent was knowing and voluntary. (See 

Manual Section 5.2.h.5 for discussion of situations when an alleger is engaged in 

both a DOL/OSHA discrimination evaluation and NRC-sponsored Early ADR.) A 

limited number of these agreements contain clauses wherein a complainant 

waives the right to seek further employment with the employer. In those cases, 

OSHA must ensure that such clauses are consistent with the underlying 

purposes of its whistleblower protection programs. 

If the evidence supports the worker's claim of discrimination and a settlement 

cannot be reached, OSHA will issue its findings and an order requiring the 

employer to reinstate the employee, pay back wages, restore benefits and other 

possible remedies in an effort to make the employee “whole.” While in the OSHA 

evaluation stage, a DOL discrimination complaint is not a matter of public record. 

In 2014, DOL/OSHA initiated an effort to provide DOL/OSHA findings to the NRC 

via electronic mail. If delays are experienced in receiving DOL/OSHA findings, 

the AAA should be informed so that interaction with DOL/OSHA may be initiated 

to determine the reason for the delays and potential solutions. 

5.2.c.2(a)(3) DOL/OSHA Investigator Request for Information from 

NRC Related to a Discrimination Concern 

While input from the NRC is not required in order for DOL/OSHA to reach a 

finding with regard to a discrimination concern, under the guidance of the 

NRC/DOL MOU, a DOL/OSHA 211(c) investigator will occasionally request 

information from the NRC regarding NRC's evaluation of the same concern. If 

the related NRC evaluation (including an OI investigation, if applicable) is 

ongoing, past practice has been to share information with DOL/OSHA by making 

the records available for review at a location and time mutually agreed upon 

between NRC and DOL. If NRC's investigation and enforcement action have 

been completed, NRC will provide copies of the requested information upon 

DOL's request. 

5.2.c.2(b) DOL Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) 

5.2.c.2(b)(1) Appeal of the DOL/OSHA Finding to the OALJ 

If the DOL/OSHA investigation did not result in a settlement between the worker 

and the employer, the finding of the DOL OSHA investigation may be appealed 

to the OALJ. If the DOL/OSHA finding was in the employer’s favor, and the 

worker disagrees with the finding, the worker may appeal the DOL/OSHA finding 

to the OALJ. Conversely, if the DOL/OSHA finding was in the worker’s favor, 

and the employer disagrees with the finding, the employer may appeal the 

DOL/OSHA finding to the OALJ. The time frame for filing an appeal to OALJ is 

usually short (~5 days) and is specified in the written DOL/OSHA finding. 

OALJ is the administrative "trial court" for many of DOL’s programs. It is 

headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has District Offices located in Boston, 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

123

MA, Cherry Hill, NJ, Cincinnati, OH, Covington, LA, Newport News, VA, 

Pittsburgh, PA, and San Francisco, CA. Administrative law judges (ALJ) hear 

cases involving a wide variety of labor-related actions, including ERA Section 

211 whistleblower cases. OALJ’s mission is to render fair and equitable 

decisions under the governing law and the facts of each case. 

Since OALJ is an administrative court, its decisions are a matter of public record, 

and improper ex parte communication with OALJ is prohibited by statute and 

regulation. If a worker or employer makes an improper ex parte communication 

with OALJ, including messages sent by e-mail, OALJ is required to put that 

communication on the public record. Also, OALJ cannot and will not provide 

assistance to persons seeking legal advice. Rather, for questions about the 

interpretation of labor laws or where to file a complaint, OALJ will direct the 

requestor to the agency having administrative responsibility and expertise over 

the subject matter (NRC in the case of ERA Section 211 matters). However, 

general questions about OALJ programs may be addressed by e-mail (OALJQuestions@dol.gov) or by letter or phone to: 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

United States Department of Labor 

Suite 400 North 

800 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20001-8002 

(202) 693-7300 

(202) 693-7365 (FAX) 

5.2.c.2.b(2) Right to a Hearing Before an ALJ and Hearing 

Waivers/Dismissal 

Individuals have the right to appear at a hearing before an ALJ in person, by 

counsel, or by other representative, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, 

and to introduce into the record documentary or other relevant evidence related 

to the complaint of discrimination. If all parties waive their right to appear before 

the ALJ or to present evidence or argument personally or by representative, it is 

not necessary for the ALJ to give notice of and conduct a hearing. A waiver of 

the right to appear before the ALJ must be made in writing and filed with the 

Chief ALJ or the assigned ALJ. Where such a waiver has been filed by all 

parties, and they do not appear before the ALJ personally or by representative, 

the ALJ makes a record of the relevant written evidence submitted by the parties, 

together with any pleadings they may submit with respect to the case. Such 

documents are the evidence in the case and provide the basis for the ALJ’s 

decision and closure of the record. A request for hearing may also be dismissed 

by the ALJ upon its abandonment or settlement by the party or parties who filed 

it. 

5.2.c.2(b)(3) Motion for summary decision. 

At least twenty days before a scheduled hearing before the ALJ, either party may 

move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a summary decision by the ALJ on 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

124

all or any part of the proceeding. The other party may, within ten days after 

service of the motion, serve opposing affidavits or a counter motion for summary 

decision by the ALJ. The ALJ may set the matter for argument and/or call for 

submission of briefs. When a motion for summary decision is made and 

supported, a party opposing the motion must set forth specific facts showing that 

there is a genuine issue of fact for the hearing. The ALJ may enter summary 

judgment for either party if the evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as 

to any material fact and that a party is entitled to summary decision. Where a 

genuine question of material fact is raised, the ALJ shall, and in any other case 

may, schedule the evidentiary hearing. 

5.2.c.2(b)(4) Formal Hearings 

ALJ hearings are open to the public. However, in unusual circumstances, the 

ALJ may order a hearing or any part thereof closed, where to do so would be in 

the best interests of the parties, a witness, the public or other affected persons. 

All ALJ hearings are mechanically or stenographically reported. All evidence 

upon which the ALJ relies for decision is contained in the transcript of testimony, 

either directly or by appropriate reference. All exhibits introduced as evidence 

are incorporated into the record. Transcripts may be obtained from OALJ by the 

parties in the proceeding for all hearings and the public for open hearings. 

When there is a hearing, the record shall be closed at the conclusion of the 

hearing unless the ALJ directs otherwise. Once the record is closed, no 

additional evidence shall be accepted into the record except upon a showing that 

new and material evidence has become available which was not readily available 

prior to closure of the record. However, the ALJ shall make part of the record 

any supporting documentation, any determinations thereon, and any approved 

correction to the transcript. 

5.2.c.2(b)(5) ALJ Decision 

Within twenty days of filing of the transcript of the testimony or such additional 

time as the ALJ may allow, each party may file with the ALJ, subject to the ALJ's 

discretion, proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order together with 

a supporting brief expressing the reasons for such proposals. Such proposals 

are to be provided to all parties in the proceeding. Within a reasonable time after 

the time allowed for the filing of the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and order, or within thirty days after receipt of an agreement reached between 

the parties disposing of the disputed matter in whole, the ALJ shall make his/her 

decision. The decision of the ALJ includes findings of fact and conclusions of law 

regarding each material issue of fact or law presented on the record. The 

decision of the ALJ is based upon the whole record, and is to be supported by 

reliable and probative evidence. 

If the ALJ’s decision is not appealed, it becomes the final administrative decision 

of the Secretary of Labor. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

125

5.2.c.2(c) DOL Administrative Review Board (DOL ARB) 

5.2.c.2.(c)(1) Appeal of the ALJ Decision to the DOL ARB 

The ALJ’s decision may be appealed to the DOL ARB. If the ALJ decision is in 

the employer’s favor, and the worker disagrees with the decision, the worker may 

appeal the ALJ decision to the DOL ARB. Conversely, if the ALJ decision is in 

the worker’s favor, and the employer disagrees with the decision, the employer 

may appeal the ALJ decision to the DOL ARB. The time frame for filing an 

appeal to the DOL ARB is usually short (~5 days) and is specified in the written 

ALJ decision. 

Prior to April 1996, appeals of ALJ decisions were filed with the Secretary of 

Labor who, after review of the information related to the appeal, rendered the 

final DOL agency decision. In April 1996, the Secretary of Labor established the 

DOL ARB to fulfill this function. The DOL ARB consists of a maximum of five 

members, one of whom is designated the Chair. The Secretary of Labor 

appoints the members of the DOL ARB based upon their qualifications and 

competence in matters within the DOL ARB’s authority. In matters involving ERA 

Section 211, the DOL ARB has the responsibility to act for the Secretary of Labor 

in issuing final DOL agency decisions arising in review or on appeal of decisions 

of the ALJ. 

It is noted that if a licensee appeals a DOL ALJ decision that discrimination 

occurred as a result of raising safety concerns, NRC will consider taking 

enforcement action on the basis of the DOL ALJ decision rather than waiting for 

the DOL ARB decision in the case. In some cases, if the action involves a civil 

penalty, the licensee will be permitted to delay payment of the penalty until after 

the DOL ARB ruling, as specified in the Enforcement ManuaI. It is also noted 

that, while the occurrence is rare, DOL ARB decisions related to ERA Section 

211 cases may be subsequently appealed to Federal district or appellate courts. 

5.2.c.2(d) Right to File with U.S. Circuit Court if DOL Final Decision Not 

Issued After One Year 

Item (b)(4) of Section 629 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included additional 

guidance regarding an action the alleger may take if he/she has filed a discrimination 

complaint with DOL. Specifically, the Act indicates that if DOL has not issued a final 

decision within one year after a complaint is filed, and there is no showing that such 

delay is due to bad faith of the person seeking relief, such person may bring an 

action in the appropriate U.S. Circuit Court. 

5.2.c.3 NRC Allegation File Status Related to Discrimination Matters in the 

DOL Process 

In general, when an alleger has filed a discrimination complaint with DOL, NRC will keep 

the related allegation file open until the DOL review process is completed, regardless of 

the NRC conclusions related to the complaint of discrimination. This permits NRC 

review of DOL findings and adjudicatory decisions related to the discrimination complaint 

to determine whether preliminary NRC conclusions related to the discrimination concern 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

126

should be amended or if additional NRC evaluation is warranted. However, if a 

discrimination concern has already been resolved via Early ADR, the outcome of a 

related DOL proceeding will not have a bearing on NRC’s conclusion. See Manual 

Sections 3.2.u.5 and 5.9.g.2 for discussion regarding NRC tracking of the open DOL 

case to assure that the issuance of a letter requesting the licensee to describe SCWE 

impacts resulting from the DOL finding of discrimination would be considered if a 

subsequent DOL decision concludes that the alleger had been discriminated against. 

5.2.c.4 Alleger’s Right to File with DOL 

An alleger may file a discrimination complaint with DOL regardless of NRC’s conclusion 

as to whether the alleger has established a prima facie showing of potential 

discrimination. If an alleger files a discrimination complaint with DOL under ERA Section 

211, the NRC/DOL MOU indicates that DOL will inform the NRC about the complaint of 

discrimination. If a considerable period of time elapses after the receipt of a 

discrimination concern for which NRC did not establish prima-facie (e.g., several months 

from the date of allegation receipt) and there is no indication that the alleger has filed a 

discrimination complaint with DOL, there is no requirement for the action office to keep 

the discrimination concern open for the full DOL 180-day filing period to assure that the 

alleger has not filed a discrimination complaint with DOL/OSHA. The discrimination 

concern and/or the allegation file, as appropriate, should be closed whenever NRC 

action with regard to the alleged discrimination is completed and there is clear indication 

that related DOL action is completed or that there is no DOL involvement. There have 

been rare occasions when, due to administrative oversight, NRC is not informed that an 

individual had filed a discrimination complaint with DOL/OSHA. If this occurs after a 

discrimination concern previously submitted to NRC is closed, a new discrimination 

concern shall be opened based on the content of the DOL complaint.

5.2.c.5 Technical Issues Related to a Discrimination Concern 

Technical issues that relate to a discrimination concern are evaluated through the 

allegation process and should be acted upon without regard to the action that may be 

taken by DOL. In this regard, when NRC is notified by DOL that it is investigating a 

complaint of discrimination under ERA Section 211, the action office shall obtain a copy 

of the complaint from DOL, and contact the alleger by telephone and/or in writing 

(usually via an acknowledgment letter (see Manual Section 5.3 and Manual Exhibit 12)), 

describing the alleger’s safety concerns as understood by the NRC and providing the 

alleger an opportunity to clarify his/her safety concerns. 

5.2.c.6 State Employees – Inability to File an ERA Section 211 Complaint 

with DOL 

Workers employed by any State (Agreement State or non-Agreement State) do not have 

the option of filing a discrimination complaint with DOL unless the State specifically 

waives its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity (since a State’s sovereign immunity 

extends to proceedings before a federal ALJ). If a State is “non-consenting,” (i.e., has 

not waived its sovereign immunity) the employee may still have a personal remedy 

option under State whistleblower regulations, if they exist. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

127

5.2.d DOL Settlement Prior to OI Investigation Completion 

If an NRC OI investigation has been initiated at the time a DOL/OSHA settlement is 

reached, the OI investigation will continue to its conclusion. The fact that a settlement was 

reached through DOL/OSHA does not provide justification for closure of the OI investigation, 

since the goal of the OI investigation (to determine whether the licensee has violated an 

NRC employee protection regulation) is different than the goal of the DOL/OSHA review, 

which initially is to negotiate a settlement between the alleger and the employer, if possible, 

and subsequently to render a finding, if settlement is not possible. 

5.2.e Different Conclusions Reached by DOL and NRC 

On occasion, NRC’s conclusion regarding a discrimination concern will disagree with DOL’s 

conclusion. This is acceptable. There is no requirement that the conclusions agree, or that 

if there is disagreement, it has to be resolved between NRC and DOL. Responsible NRC 

staff always review DOL decisions related to a discrimination concern investigated by OI, 

regardless of whether the OI and DOL conclusions agree, to determine whether the DOL 

proceedings present any additional facts that may have a bearing on or result in a change to 

NRC’s final decision. 

Manual Section 5.9.f.3 discusses actions to be taken if an OI investigation has been 

conducted and is completed prior to the completion of DOL proceedings regarding a 

discrimination concern. The NRC Enforcement Program governs actions that may be taken 

by NRC in this circumstance. For example, if an OI investigation substantiates the 

discrimination concern prior to the completion of the DOL process, NRC may choose to 

proceed with enforcement action at that time. If a proposed civil penalty accompanies the 

enforcement, NRC may inform the licensee that payment of the civil penalty can be deferred 

until final DOL process decisions are rendered, since there is a possibility that the facts 

articulated in future DOL decisions may affect NRC’s final conclusion and the ultimate 

enforcement action. NRC may also choose to await completion of the DOL process before 

proceeding with enforcement action. 

If, in reviewing the DOL documentation, NRC concludes it has a different opinion regarding 

DOL’s decision on the merits of the discrimination case, there are mechanisms through 

which responsible NRC staff (with OGC support) can provide opinions or concerns to DOL 

or inform DOL that its decisions may be affecting NRC’s enforcement of its regulations (see 

Manual Sections 5.2.f.5 and 5.2.f.6). 

5.2.f NRC Contacts for DOL Information (8.8 Handbook, Section III) 

NRC may contribute to the record in DOL adjudications. The contacts for each are as 

follows: 

5.2.f.1 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. NRC is 

available to assist cognizant DOL personnel and individuals with accessing NRC 

information, understanding technical issues, or determining whether an individual is has 

engaged in protected activity. The initial contact for requests from individuals outside 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

128

the agency is the AAA. However, allegation and/or 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 Manual Exhibit 9, 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section III.A) 

5.2.f.2 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 of OI, who will consult with the Director of 

OE. (see Manual Section 5.2.c.2(a)(3)) For cases that have been referred to the DOJ for 

potential criminal prosecution, the Director of OI must also consult with DOJ before 

responding to the request. (8.8 Handbook, Section III.B)

5.2.f.3 Production or Disclosure in Response to Subpoenas or Demands of 

Courts 

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section III.C)

5.2.f.4 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act 

Information also 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, OIS. 

(8.8 Handbook, Section III.D)

5.2.f.5 Amicus Curiae Briefs 

NRC will consider filing amicus curiae briefs when it is determined that the outcome of 

an issue may affect 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 NRC. All requests for amicus curiae briefs should be 

provided to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement. (8.8 

Handbook, Section III.E)

5.2.f.6 Correspondence 

NRC also may correspond directly with the Secretary of Labor to express any opinions 

or concerns on issues raised in DOL proceedings. Requests for communications 

between NRC and the Secretary of Labor should be provided to the Assistant General 

Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement. (8.8 Handbook, Section III.F) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

129

5.2.g Concerns about DOL Performance or the Validity of Information Provided 

to DOL 

If a concern is received about the performance of DOL personnel in reviewing a submitted 

complaint of discrimination, or about the validity of information provided by a licensee during 

hearings before a DOL ALJ, DOL may be informed of such matters at the following address: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Office of Investigations 

Complaint Analysis Office 

Room S 5514 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20210 

OI and OE should also be informed of such concerns so that these offices may consider the 

relevance of the information to related investigations or enforcement action. 

5.2.h Early Alternative Dispute Resolution (Early ADR) 

5.2.h.1 Implementation of Early ADR 

On September 8, 2003, the Commission issued an SRM which directed the staff to 

develop a pilot program, as described in SECY-03-0115, to evaluate the use of ADR in 

handling allegations of discrimination. In response, the staff recommended in SECY-04-

0044, dated March 12, 2004, that the pilot program scope consist of the trial use of Early 

ADR for cases involving alleged discrimination for engaging in protected activity prior to 

an NRC investigation. Early ADR has since become a permanent aspect of the NRC 

allegation process. A flow chart depicting the Early ADR process is provided in Manual 

Exhibit 10. Additional information regarding the NRC Early ADR Program may be 

obtained on the following NRC public website link: 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr/pre-investigation.html

5.2.h.2 Prerequisite to Offer of Early ADR – Prima Facie Showing 

Early ADR involves mediation (a form of ADR) between an employer (or 

former/prospective employer) and an employee (or former/prospective employee) with a 

prima facie showing of potential discrimination, prior to any NRC investigation. 

Determination of a prima facie showing must be made by an ARB prior to offering Early 

ADR. If the initial ARB, with Regional Counsel or OGC support, determines that a prima 

facie showing of potential discrimination exists, the ARB will normally recommend that 

the alleger, and subsequently the employer (or former/prospective employer), if the 

alleger agrees, be offered the opportunity to use Early ADR. Exceptions to such a 

recommendation should be rare and based on a compelling and clear reason not to offer 

the opportunity to utilize the benefits the Early ADR program offers. Exceptions to 

offering Early ADR must be pre-approved by the Director, OE. Proposed exceptions to 

offering Early ADR should be brought to the attention of the OE ADR Program Manager, 

who will brief the Director, OE in support of the Director’s decision. 

If OI is requested by the ARB to conduct an Assist to Staff to interview the alleger to help 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

130

determine if the alleger has articulated a prima facie showing of potential discrimination, 

and a follow up ARB concludes, with OGC or Regional Counsel support, that a prima 

facie showing was made, OI activity will stop its activities at this point in deference to an 

Early ADR offer to the alleger. 

5.2.h.3 Early ADR Offer 

Once the use of Early ADR is approved by the ARB, the OAC will include, in the 

acknowledgment letter to the alleger (or other appropriate correspondence if the 

discrimination concern was previously acknowledged), the option to enter into Early 

ADR. The correspondence will inform the alleger of the option, if he/she so chooses, to 

contact the Early ADR mediation contractor for information regarding the Early ADR 

process. The acknowledgment letter will inform the alleger that the NRC has engaged 

an Early ADR mediation contractor to aid the alleger and the employer (former or 

prospective employer) in resolving the dispute and will encourage the alleger to contact 

the Early ADR mediation contractor for further information on Early ADR. A copy of 

NRC’s, “Pre-Investigation ADR Program” brochure (NUREG/BR-0313) will also be 

included. The most recent version of the brochure is located at the following link on the 

NRC public web site: 

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

The language offering Early ADR to the alleger is included in the sample allegation 

acknowledgment letter in Manual Exhibit 12. Upon issuance of the correspondence that 

includes the Early ADR offer, the OAC will transmit a copy to the OE ADR Program 

Manager, and a description of the prima facie elements of the discrimination concern. 

The correspondence should be sent to the “OEADR Resource” e-mail address so that 

the information can be acted upon promptly by the OE ADR Program Manager, or the 

OE staff member who is acting for the OE ADR Program Manager, if he/she is 

unavailable. The OAC will enter an action of “ADR Offered” into AMS at the time the 

correspondence is sent to an alleger extending an offer to enter into the Early ADR 

process. The start date on this action will be the date of the correspondence and the 

planned completion date should be 10 days after the correspondence is issued. The 

OAC will also select “ADR” under the OI action field at both the allegation and concern 

levels of AMS. The OE ADR Program Manager does not provide any information to the 

Early ADR mediation contractor about the prima facie determination until after the 

alleger has contacted the Early ADR mediation contractor. This contact provides 

verification to the Early ADR mediation contractor that the individual contacting the Early 

ADR mediation contractor was offered Early ADR by the NRC. 

Early ADR should be offered to the alleger whenever the ARB (with Regional 

Counsel/OGC support) determines that a prima facie showing has been articulated, 

even if the alleger has already filed a discrimination complaint with DOL/OSHA. While 

involvement in one process may have a bearing on the other, it would be inappropriate 

to assume that the alleger would not consider Early ADR because he/she is already in 

contact with DOL/OSHA. Since DOL/OSHA’s primary goal is to effect a mutually 

agreeable settlement between the alleger and his/her employer or former employer, 

DOL/OSHA may choose to defer its efforts if the alleger indicates to DOL/OSHA that 

he/she prefers to first attempt mediation via NRC’s Early ADR process. 

Notwithstanding, there is no requirement for DOL/OSHA to hold their investigation 

pending a conclusion reached via Early ADR. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

131

5.2.h.4 Lack of Alleger/Employer Response to Early ADR Offer 

5.2.h.4(a) Alleger Lack of Response to Early ADR Offer 

If the alleger does not respond with a decision regarding Early ADR within 10 days 

after receiving the correspondence offering Early ADR, the OAC should attempt to 

contact the alleger and request a decision, as discussed below in Manual Section 

5.2.h.4(b). 

5.2.h.4(b) Soliciting Alleger Response to Early ADR Offer 

It is not unusual for allegers to take longer than the 10-calendar day time frame after 

receipt of the acknowledgement letter to respond to the NRC and the agency has

routinely allowed additional time for the alleger to make a decision regarding the use 

of Early ADR. In order to apply a degree of consistency to the amount of time 

afforded to an alleger to make a decision regarding Early ADR, it is suggested that a 

20-calendar day “grace period” be allowed to pass after the 10-calendar day 

response time frame indicated in the acknowledgment letter. If the alleger does not 

engage the Early ADR mediation contractor during that additional 20-calendar day 

time frame, the staff may, at that time, turn the issue over to OI for initiation of an 

investigation, as long as there is no compelling reason to allow additional delay 

(provided the region/program office has informed the alleger that OI will take action 

to initiate an investigation after the 20-calendar day grace period expires and that the 

Early ADR program will be unavailable to the alleger with regard to his/her 

discrimination concern once OI has initiated an investigation). If at this point, the 

alleger does not wish to participate in an OI investigation of his or her discrimination 

concern, or if the staff is unable to re-contact the alleger, the staff may initiate action 

to close the concern. Closure documentation to the alleger should indicate that NRC 

is closing the concern based on the alleger’s lack of participation in Early ADR and 

desire not to participate in an OI investigation, but that NRC would open a new 

allegation concern in the future if the alleger reconsiders pursuit of the discrimination 

matter. 

5.2.h.4(c) Other Considerations Related to Alleger Early ADR Offer 

Manual Sections 5.2.h.4(a) and 5.2.h.4(b) are to be considered general guidance as 

there may be occasions when deviation from the guidance is acceptable. For 

example, if during the time after the 20-calendar day additional time frame expires 

and before OI contacts the alleger in an effort to set up an interview, the alleger 

contacts the Early ADR mediation contractor, it would make sense to allow Early 

ADR to proceed in that instance. Similarly, if a discrimination concern is turned over 

to OI, and upon initial contact by OI, the alleger indicates that he/she will be pursuing 

Early ADR, it would likely be appropriate in such a circumstance for OI to allow the 

alleger a short period of time (e.g., a week) to contact the Early ADR mediation 

contractor. 

5.2.h.4(d) Employer Lack of Response to Early ADR Request 

As indicated in Manual Section 5.2.h.6, if the alleger chooses to pursue the Early 

ADR offer with the Early ADR mediation contractor, the Early ADR mediation 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

132

contractor’s initial action is to attempt to obtain the employer’s agreement to mediate. 

On occasion, the employer is unresponsive to the request to mediate. Normally, in 

these instances, the NRC Early ADR Program Manager will contact the Early ADR 

mediation contractor and request that additional attempts are made to contact the 

employer to obtain a decision as to whether or not the employer wishes to participate 

in Early ADR. Since the Early ADR program is voluntary, it is inappropriate for NRC 

to pursue why the employer is being unresponsive to the Early ADR request. 

If the employer continues to be unresponsive, the responsible office and the OE ADR 

Program Manager will discuss whether the Early ADR offer to the licensee should be 

rescinded. If it is agreed that the Early ADR offer will no longer be available to the 

licensee, the Early ADR Program Manager shall inform the Early ADR mediation 

contractor that NRC is moving forward with the OI investigation. At the same time, 

the OAC or responsible staff will inform the alleger that NRC has chosen to initiate 

an OI investigation. 

Normally, the NRC should not wait longer than a month from the date the alleger 

accepts the Early ADR offer to request the Early ADR mediation contractor to 

attempt to contact the employer to obtain a decision as to whether or not is it going to 

participate in Early ADR. 

5.2.h.5 Prohibition of Early ADR Offer After OI Case Initiation 

Once OI has initiated an investigation into a matter of alleged discrimination, and 

substantive investigative activity has been conducted, Early ADR is no longer an option 

for the alleger or the employer (or former/prospective employer). NRC investigates 

assertions of discrimination for engagement in protected activity because of its potential 

to negatively affect the SCWE, not to address the alleger’s desire for personal remedy.

While the alleger and the employer (or former/prospective employer) may pursue 

subsequent internal efforts to settle their differences, NRC will not consider such action 

as equivalent to Early ADR or as a reason to terminate the OI investigation. The policy of 

continuing the OI investigation in this circumstance will also deter any perception on the 

part of the licensee that external action can be taken to stop the OI investigation, for 

example, by requesting the alleger to inform NRC that he/she wishes to withdraw the 

discrimination concern submitted to NRC in deference to efforts to reach a settlement 

with the licensee.

Notwithstanding the above discussion, if the alleger has not yet been interviewed by OI, 

there are circumstances when NRC would consider cessation of OI investigative 

activities and closure of the discrimination concern. Assuming that an alleger’s 

discrimination concern was determined to be prima facie and that the alleger declined to 

participate in Early ADR, the next step in the process is for OI to initiate an investigation. 

If upon OI’s initial contact with the alleger, the alleger indicates that he/she does not wish 

to participate in the OI investigation, or formally withdraws the discrimination complaint, 

closure documentation to the alleger may be initiated indicating that NRC is closing the 

concern based on the alleger’s withdrawal or desire not to participate in the OI 

investigation. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

133

5.2.h.6 Early ADR Mediation Process 

5.2.h.6(a) Notification of DOL/OSHA Regarding Early ADR Mediation 

If, in addition to agreeing to participate in mediation via Early ADR with the licensee, 

the alleger has also filed a discrimination complaint with DOL/OSHA, the licensee 

may inform DOL/OSHA that the Early ADR mediation is to take place. However, in 

some instances, this notification does not occur. If it becomes apparent to the NRC 

that DOL/OSHA is unaware of the pending Early ADR mediation, it is acceptable for 

the responsible OAC or other assigned staff to notify the assigned DOL/OSHA 

investigator that both parties have agreed to mediate via Early ADR, in keeping with 

the intent of the MOU between NRC and DOL that information about the review of 

discrimination concerns be shared as appropriate. Since DOL/OSHA's initial 

evaluation efforts are targeted toward negotiating a settlement between the alleger 

and the employer or (former/prospective employer) (see Manual Section 

5.2.c.2(a)(2)), it is prudent that such information be shared with DOL/OSHA by NRC 

to assure that DOL/OSHA is aware of the alternative mediation effort (Early ADR). 

5.2.h.6(b) Alleger Retention of Legal Representation for Early ADR 

Although the alleger is not required to have legal representation to participate in the 

NRC’s Early ADR program, on occasion, an alleger will solicit the services of an 

attorney to represent him/her during the mediation process. In the standard 

acknowledgment letter, the alleger is informed that if he/she retains legal 

representation or obtains legal representation in the future, the NRC will not 

communicate with the legal representative unless the alleger provides NRC with the 

legal representative’s name and contact information, and indicates that he/she wants 

NRC to provide copies of future correspondence to him/her and to the legal 

representative or to communicate directly with the legal representative. The alleger 

is also informed that if the legal representative contacts the NRC before the alleger 

informs the NRC about his/her legal representation, the NRC will neither confirm nor 

deny that the alleger contacted the NRC since it is agency policy to protect the 

identity of individuals who submit allegations. 

5.2.h.6(c) Initiation of Mediation Process 

If the alleger wishes to participate in Early ADR, the Early ADR mediation contractor 

will notify the OE ADR Program Manager and will coordinate initiation of mediation 

with the employer (or former/prospective employer), including the initial step of 

obtaining the employer’s (or former/prospective employer’s) agreement to mediate. 

When the alleger is notified of the option to use Early ADR to mediate a complaint of 

discrimination, the OAC should make it clear that the NRC’s Early ADR process does 

not stay the DOL 180-day requirement for filing a complaint. A sample Agreement to 

Mediate is provided in Manual Exhibit 11. 

5.2.h.6(d) Mediation Status 

The OE ADR Program Manager will periodically update the OACs regarding the 

status of each pending Early ADR case via e-mail or status reports on the internal 

ADR webpage. This information will serve as documentation that the alleger has 

entered into Early ADR with the licensee. Once the alleger enters into Early ADR 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

134

with the licensee, the “ADR Offered” action in AMS will be closed, an action of “ADR 

Alleger” will be entered into AMS, and the allegation file will be exempted from the 

allegation closure timeliness metrics. A planned completion date of 90 days from the 

date the alleger entered into Early ADR will be entered into AMS under this action so 

that the date when settlement is expected can be tracked. 

5.2.h.7 Review of Early ADR Settlement Agreement 

Upon settlement of the dispute, the settlement agreement will be transmitted to the OE 

ADR Program Manager. The OE ADR Program Manager will, in turn, transmit the 

settlement agreement to OGC for review to ensure that the agreement does not contain 

any restrictive clauses potentially in violation of 10 CFR 50.7(f) or other similar NRC 

employee protection rules. Specifically, 10 CFR 50.7(f) states that...”No agreement 

affecting the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including an 

agreement to settle a complaint filed by an employee with the Department of Labor 

pursuant to ERA Section 211, as amended, may contain any provision which would 

prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage an employee from participating in protected 

activity as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section including, but not limited to, 

providing information to the NRC or to his or her employer on potential violations or other 

matters within NRC's regulatory responsibilities.” Most licensees have achieved 

compliance with this requirement by including a provision in the agreement with the 

employee that explicitly provides that nothing in the agreement shall be construed to 

restrict an employee’s ability to engage in protected activity.

Occasionally, a party will provide a settlement agreement to the OAC rather than the OE 

ADR Program Manager. In such instances, the OAC should forward the settlement 

agreement to the OE ADR Program Manager. 

The OE ADR Program Manager will notify the OAC of the results of OGC’s review of the 

settlement and provide the OAC with a copy of the agreement for the allegation file. 

Since settlement agreements will not be final until three days after the agreement is 

signed, the OACs should ensure that OGC has accepted the agreement and that it has 

been at least three days since the settlement was signed before the allegation file is 

closed. Given an acceptable agreement, the OAC can close the allegation in AMS and 

issue a closure letter to the alleger. When a settlement agreement is acceptable to the 

NRC, the OE ADR Program Manager will inform the mediator, who will provide this 

information to the licensee. For concerns settled via ADR that are deemed acceptable 

by NRC, the concern should be coded as Not Applicable (N/A) vs. “substantiated’ or 

“unsubstantiated” in AMS. If the settlement agreement is unacceptable to the NRC, 

NRC will contact the Early ADR mediation contractor, who will contact the mediator. 

OGC also may contact the attorney for either party or both parties to discuss the content 

of the settlement agreement. If the OAC has not been notified of a settlement 

agreement within 90 days, the OAC should contact OE’s ADR Program Manager to 

determine the status of the case. 

5.2.h.8 Actions if Settlement is Not Reached 

If the parties have not agreed to a settlement and an extension is not granted, or if the 

parties do not agree to mediate, the OAC will schedule an ARB to discuss appropriate 

disposition of the allegation or continue with the allegation process described in MD 8.8 

for prima facie cases of discrimination. If the initial ARB has discussed disposition of the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

135

discrimination concern in the event that the parties did not mediate the dispute, another 

ARB is not necessary. Where good cause is shown and all parties agree, the NRC may 

allow a small extension to the 90-day limit to allow for completion of a settlement 

agreement before reconvening an ARB. 

5.2.h.9 Early ADR Mediation Contractor Responsibilities 

The Early ADR mediation contractor will maintain a roster of experienced mediators and 

will serve as the intake neutral responsible for developing and processing the necessary 

information for mediation under Early ADR. No further action by the OAC is necessary 

during the Early ADR process. Should any party seek to discuss the Early ADR process 

in detail, the party should be referred to the Early ADR mediation contractor. Any 

underlying technical issues will be treated as separate issues within the allegation 

program and are not subject to any of the requirements or restrictions of the Early ADR 

Program. 

5.2.h.10 Employer Internal Dispute Resolution Processes 

The NRC has encouraged employers to develop dispute resolution processes internal to 

their company, similar to NRC’s Early ADR process described in NUREG BR-0313, for 

use in conjunction with their own employee concerns programs (see Federal Register 

Notice 69 FR 50219 dated August 13, 2004, NRC Enforcement Policy; Alternate Dispute 

Resolution). If an employee who alleges retaliation for engaging in protected activity 

utilizes a licensee’s program to settle the discrimination concern, either before or after 

contacting the NRC, the licensee may voluntarily report the settlement to the NRC as a 

settlement within the NRC’s jurisdiction. If notified of the settlement prior to initiation of 

an OI investigation, OGC will need to review the settlement, as described in Manual 

Section 5.2.h.7 above, for restrictive agreements potentially in violation of 

10 CFR 50.7(f), or other, similar NRC employee protection rules. OGC may contact the 

alleger's attorney, the licensee's legal counsel, or both to discuss the content of the 

settlement agreement. If no such restrictive agreements exist, the NRC will not 

investigate or take enforcement action. 

5.2.h.11 Considering DOL/OSHA Settlement Agreements as Equivalent to 

Early ADR 

If the alleger files a discrimination complaint with DOL/OSHA, DOL/OSHA will 

occasionally complete negotiation of a settlement before OI initiates an investigation. 

Whether the settlement achieved through DOL/OSHA should be considered similar to an 

internal licensee-sponsored settlement and thus given credit as being equivalent to a 

settlement achieved via Early ADR is considered on a case-by-case basis. If 

DOL/OSHA releases the settlement agreement to NRC for review (or if the licensee 

provides the agreement to NRC, and there is no restriction on doing so) and NRC (OGC) 

finds the agreement to be reasonable and non-restrictive, NRC may consider such a 

settlement as being equivalent to a settlement achieved via Early ADR, depending on 

the specific circumstances of the case. As an example, if the licensee was negotiating in 

good faith with the employee when the employee decided to file a discrimination claim 

with DOL, and DOL/OSHA’s effort simply involved overseeing the completion of the 

negotiations between the employee and the licensee, it would be reasonable to assume 

that NRC could accept the settlement in that instance as equivalent to Early ADR. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

136

5.2.h.12 Confidentiality of Mediation Activities 

Mediation activities under Early ADR are subject to the confidentiality provisions of the 

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA), 5 U.S.C Sections 571-584 

(http://www.adr.gov/pdf/confid.pdf) and the federal ADR Council’s Guidance document 

entitled, “Confidentiality in Federal ADR Programs.”

(http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2000/10/04/00-25397/confidentiality-in-federalalternative-dispute-resolution-programs-evaluation-of-federal-alternative) 

Actions of the intake neutral, who develops case information and processes that 

information in preparation for mediation, aiding in resolution of the conflict, are also 

subject to the confidentiality provisions specified in 5 U.S.C and the federal ADR 

Council’s guidance document. Since OACs will not be functioning as intake neutrals and 

will instruct allegers who wish to participate in Early ADR to contact the Early ADR 

mediation contractor regarding Early ADR issues, OAC communications with the alleger 

will not be confidential and will therefore not need to be marked or controlled other than 

as instructed by Section II.H of the MD 8.8 Handbook. In addition, the agreement to 

mediate and the final settlement document, which will be maintained in the allegation 

file, will not be confidential and should not be marked as such. Further specific guidance 

on the confidentiality provisions of the ADRA can be found in the federal ADR Council’s 

Guidance document. Of particular interest to the allegation program is the following 

guidance from the report: 

o Confidentiality applies under the ADRA to communications when a person seeking

ADR services contacts an appropriate neutral. Therefore, communications with the

OAC before the alleger enters into Early ADR are not subject to the confidentiality

provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sections 571-584. In addition, confidentiality does not apply

to communications made after a final written agreement is reached or after resolution

efforts aided by the neutral have otherwise ended.

o The confidentiality protections of the ADRA only apply if the intake person has been

appropriately identified as a neutral by the agency to aid parties in resolving such

disputes. As such, communications between the OAC and the alleger are not

subject to the confidentiality provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sections 571-584 as long as the

OAC informs the alleger, through the acknowledgment letter and in subsequent

communications, that the alleger should contact the Early ADR mediation contractor

to discuss issues related to Early ADR mediation.

o The ADRA requires that dispute resolution communications remain confidential. The

Act defines dispute resolution communication as any oral or written communication

prepared for the purposes of a dispute resolution proceeding. Therefore,

communications with the OAC, not prepared for the purpose of the dispute resolution

proceeding, are not subject to the confidentiality provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sections 571-

584. 

Dispute resolution communications between a neutral and a party that are confidential 

under the ADRA are specifically exempted from disclosure (see FOIA Section 

552(b)(3)2). As such, dispute resolution communications, including oral comments 

2

5 U.S.C. Section 552 b(3) - (b) This section (i.e., 5 U.S.C. Section 552, Public Information) does not apply to 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

137

during conflict resolution between the alleger, the third party neutral, and the licensee, 

which are not Federal records, are not subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA. 

In addition, other FOIA exemptions may apply to Early ADR communications. 

5.2.h.13 Non-Compliance or Slow Compliance with Terms of Settlement 

Agreement 

Since NRC is not a party to the settlement agreement, it does not have the authority to 

compel either party to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement that the parties 

have not executed. The parties’ rights are typically explained in the agreement. If there 

is a breach by one party, the other party may resort to the judicial system to enforce the 

terms of the agreement. 

5.2.i Third-Party Allegations of Discrimination 

On occasion, an alleger will indicate that he/she believes that another individual has been 

discriminated against for engaging in protected activity. As with the receipt of any allegation 

concern, the NRC staff member receiving the allegation should obtain as much information 

as possible about the asserted concern. However, as a general rule, the alleger should be 

informed that the NRC does not pursue third-party claims of discrimination. This approach 

is taken fundamentally because the staff has found that individuals are reluctant to 

participate in an inquiry of asserted discrimination which they have neither initiated nor 

consented to; and that doing so can potentially compromise both the information provided, 

as well as the rapport between the NRC staff and that individual. The alleger may have 

received inaccurate information about something that happened to the other individual or 

may simply have a different interpretation of what happened and whether it was 

discriminatory in nature. It is preferred that a discrimination concern be provided directly to 

the NRC by the affected individual so that NRC may obtain feedback from and correspond 

directly with that individual. 

For third-party assertions of discrimination, the alleger should be provided with information 

about filing a discrimination claim with NRC and DOL, and asked to provide this information 

to the individual he/she feels has been discriminated against. If the alleger chooses to 

provide this information to the other individual, the other individual may then consider 

whether he/she desires to provide a discrimination concern directly to the NRC. 

For tracking purposes, although NRC does not normally investigate third-party allegations of 

discrimination, such concerns do meet the definition of an allegation and are to be entered 

into the AMS database as assertions of discrimination under ERA Section 211. Should the 

alleger indicate that because of the perceived discrimination against the other individual, the 

alleger or a group of individuals are now afraid to raise safety concerns, a separate concern 

should be entered into AMS with the Concern Discipline coded as “Chilling Effect." The 

chilling effect concern should be considered by the ARB separate from the third-party 

discrimination assertion. 

matters that are -- (3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), if that 

statute--(A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the 

issue; or (ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and 

(B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009 (i.e., Oct. 29, 2009), specifically cites to this 

paragraph."
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

138

[Note: It is emphasized that the NRC position not to pursue a third-party allegation only 

applies to discrimination concerns and not to technical concerns. Any technical concern 

that meets the definition of an allegation, regardless of its source, will be evaluated by the 

NRC.] 

5.2.j Chilling Effect/Chilled Work Environment Allegations 

5.2.j.1 Chilling Effect/Chilled Work Environment Concern Types 

NRC will occasionally receive a concern that an event, interaction, decision, or policy 

change at a licensee has resulted in a perception that the raising of safety concerns is 

being suppressed or is discouraged. If this perception is held by one individual or a 

small number of individuals, the occurrence can best be described as having a “chilling 

effect” on this person or these individuals. If the concern is that the occurrence has 

created a work environment where the willingness of a group of employees or the entire 

facility is inhibited, it is referred to as an assertion of a “chilled work environment.” 

Suggested questions to ask an alleger who is providing a chilling effect or chilled work 

environment concern are provided in Manual Section 3.1.o and Manual Exhibit 1. 

Chilling effect/chilled work environment concerns are often, but not always, related to 

discrimination concerns. Examples of chilling effect/chilled work environment allegation 

concerns are provided below: 

Chilling Effect/Chilled Work Environment Concerns Related to Discrimination Issues 

- discrimination against the alleger has caused the alleger and/or others to be chilled 

- discriminatory action against another individual has caused the alleger and/or others 

to be chilled 

- non-NRC-related discrimination has “chilled” workers, causing the alleger and/or 

others to be unwilling or hesitant to raise nuclear/radiological safety issues 

Chilling Effect/Chilled Work Environment Concerns Related to Management Behaviors 

(Other than Discrimination) 

– Concerns are addressed improperly, slowly, or not at all

– Positive feedback is given for limiting concerns raised

– Management requires that corrective action program items be screened prior to

submittal

– No access to supervisor, avoidance

– Management over-emphasizes schedules

– Management requires workers to perform activities they communicate are improper

or unsafe

– Workers who raise concerns are sent for psychological counseling

– Workers who raise concerns are treated negatively/chastised by management

(troublemaker, not a team player) or differently (singled out)

5.2.j.2 ARB Proposed Actions in Response to Chilling Effect/Chilled Work 

Environment Concerns 

It is first noted that NRC’s primary focus in these matters is determining whether the 

work environment of a group or groups within a licensee’s facility, or the entire facility 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

139

has been chilled (i.e., whether the event, interaction, decision, or policy change-inquestion has negatively impacted the SCWE at the facility). NRC cannot draw a 

definitive conclusion related to a concern from one individual that he/she was “chilled.” 

In making such an allegation, the alleger is providing his/her personal reaction to the 

occurrence. Therefore, NRC cannot respond by indicating that the alleger did not have 

the reaction he/she described or that he/she reacted incorrectly. The only response 

NRC can provide to a single individual’s assertion of a chilling effect is to evaluate the 

occurrence described and provide feedback as to whether NRC believes a "reasonable 

person" would find the occurrence to be ”chilling” in nature. If action was taken by the 

licensee, the NRC response to such a concern can also inform the alleger as to the 

nature of those licensee actions. For example, a possible response to the alleger who 

alleges that only he/she is chilled vs. the greater work environment might be...”The 

licensee recognized that the statement made to you could have been perceived 

negatively, and has counseled (the individual) who made the statement.” If the action 

office is unaware of any actions taken by the licensee in response to the assertion of 

chilling effect, another option would be to notify the licensee about the issue for 

information only, without providing the alleger’s identity. If the alleger objects to such an 

action, the information should normally not be provided to the licensee, and the concern 

should be closed with no further action. 

An alleger who raises a chilling effect concern will also occasionally state that he/she will 

not raise additional concerns because the licensee routinely assigns evaluation 

responsibilities to the individual who initially raised the concern as a punitive measure. 

Licensee feedback regarding such an assertion will often indicate that such action is 

used as a motivational tool, to allow the individual who submitted the concern to 

participate in its resolution. NRC should evaluate such matters closely to determine if 

the licensee has assigned evaluation responsibilities to an individual who is 

appropriately qualified to do the evaluation and/or if other factors provide indication that 

the licensee’s actions were, in fact, punitive.

Regarding the evaluation of chilled work environment concerns, there is no specific 

evaluation option prescribed for each type of concern mentioned in 5.2.h.1 above. The 

evaluation option recommended by the ARB will depend on the amount of detail that is 

provided by the alleger along with NRC knowledge and insight related to the SCWE at 

the facility. The possible evaluation options are as follows: 

• No NRC action (acknowledge and close)

• Inform the licensee with no response required

• NRC inspection (e.g., Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R) inspection, PI&R

sample, ECP inspection)

• RFI to the licensee

• OI Assist (or OI Supplemental review during a related investigation)

• Chilling Effect Letter (CEL) (a discussion or meeting with licensee management may

be an additional action considered by the action office prior or subsequent to the

issuance of a chilling effect letter)

Listed below are the types of questions that should be explored by the ARB in an effort 

to determine the appropriate approach to evaluating a chilled work environment concern: 

ARB Considerations Related to Information Supplied by the Alleger 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

140

– What happened and how has it impacted the willingness of workers to raise

safety concerns (or to challenge actions or decisions that may be unsafe)?

– How many workers have been potentially chilled? Does the concern affect only

the alleger, a small group, a department, or the whole site? Did the alleger

provide the names of others he/she believes may have been chilled or who have

indicated that they are chilled.

– When did the chilling action or event occur?

– What influence does the individual who caused the chilled work environment

have on those who are chilled?

– Is the alleged chilling effect based on the alleger’s opinion? Or have others told

the alleger they are chilled?

– What avenues for raising concerns are workers hesitant to use? (communication

w/supervisor or senior management, CAP, ECP, NRC, others)

– Is a certain type of concern not being raised?

– If so, what type and why are workers hesitant to raise this type of concern?

Examples (examples will help determine impact on safety)?

– Are there specific concerns the alleger or others have not raised?

Examples?

– Is management aware of the chilled work environment? If yes, have actions

been taken to address the situation and have those actions been effective?”

– In general, has management taken action to prevent and detect chilled work

environments at this plant/facility? If yes, have those actions been effective?”

ARB Considerations Related to NRC Knowledge Regarding Facility SCWE 

– Overall volume of worker concerns (NRC allegations increasing? Usage of

licensee CAP/ECP decreasing?)

– Are there any currently open discrimination concerns related to the facility?

– Is there a history of NRC or DOL discrimination findings related to the facility?

– Has there been a trend in the last 12-18 months toward settlements of

discrimination concerns via DOL, Early ADR, or otherwise that is indicative of an

effort to mask work environment problems?

– Has NRC received multiple allegations in the last 12-18 months about the same

issue? From the same group or different groups?

– Are there trends in concerns raised in the last 12-18 months that could produce a

reluctance to raise concerns, such as excessive overtime, perceived

schedule/cost pressures, large maintenance backlogs, deferred corrective action,

etc.?

– Can recent inspection results provide input to the state of the SCWE at the

facility (PI&R, other)? For example, have there been issues related to:

 licensee effectiveness in identifying safety issues;

 lack of effective evaluation, follow-up, and corrective action for findings made

by the QA organization, concerns entered into the licensee’s CAP, or issues

raised to the licensee’s ECP;

 delays in or absence of feedback for concerns raised to ECP;

 breaches of confidentiality for concerns raised to ECP

– If the chilled work environment concern is related to a licensed facility with an

NRC resident inspector, what are the perceptions of the resident inspectors with

regard to the facility SCWE?
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

141

– Are there any recent SCWE/Safety Culture survey results that would provide

input to the state of the facility SCWE? Has the licensee implemented

recommended corrective actions from the survey?

– Is the licensee already aware of a chilled work environment problem at the site?

If so, have corrective actions been taken and are they effective?

The evaluation option chosen by the ARB will be informed by the answers to the above 

questions. The first two evaluation options noted above (no NRC action, provide to 

licensee for information only) indicate that, based on the information provided by the 

alleger and NRC staff knowledge about the SCWE at the facility, the ARB has 

determined that there was insufficient information related to a potential chilled work 

environment to warrant further review. In this circumstance, if the alleger also objected 

to the NRC engaging the licensee, an ARB decision of “No NRC Action” would be 

appropriate. If the alleger did not object to the NRC informing the licensee about the 

concern, the ARB could decide to provide the concern to the licensee for informational

purposes. 

The next three evaluation options (NRC inspection, RFI to licensee, OI Assist (or OI 

Supplement to investigation)) indicate that the ARB has determined that sufficient 

information was provided to suggest that action should be taken to gain more insight into 

whether a chilled work environment may exist at the facility, and if so, the severity of the 

problem. In this respect, Manual Section 5.6.d should be consulted by the ARB in order 

to determine whether the issuance of an RFI to the licensee is a viable option. If an RFI 

is not a viable option, and the alleger provided sufficient information to enable the NRC 

to conduct an inspection, inspection effort should be considered by the ARB as a 

proposed course of action. In some instances, the ARB may choose, instead of or in 

addition to a proposed inspection effort, to request the support of OI by way of an OI 

Assist or an OI Supplemental evaluation during a related investigation (i.e., if OI is 

already engaged in the investigation of a discrimination or wrongdoing matter that is 

asserted to be a contributor to the chilled work environment concern), in determining 

whether a chilled work environment exists. 

SCWE evaluation tools used by either the licensee responding to an RFI or by the NRC 

during an inspection include interviews, document reviews, and observations. Interviews 

can be done in focus groups or one-on-one and should include workers and 

management in the impacted organizations. Workers should not be interviewed with 

their management present, as this may be intimidating and prevent the workers from 

providing candid input. It can also be useful to interview an organization at the facility 

that is not alleged to be chilled to establish a control group perspective. Those 

interviewed should be representative of the subject group. Another source of insight into 

the health of the SCWE is the ECP manager. Interview questions should be designed to 

solicit information in the following key areas: 

 How many workers are impacted and in which organizations/groups?

 Which reporting avenues are workers hesitant to use to raise concerns and why?

 What types of concerns are workers hesitant to raise and why? Record examples.

Basic SCWE principles should be explored with interviewees including whether or not 

the worker perceives that: 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

142

 Workers are retaliated against for raising concerns

 Management encourages workers to raise concerns

 Management is responsive to concerns raised

 The CAP and ECP (if applicable) are effective and responsive

 Management effectively prevents or mitigates occurrences of discrimination and

chilling effect

Documents that should be considered for review include: 

 Relevant documents provided or referred to by the alleger

 ECP files/CAP data

 SCWE and/or safety culture self-assessments

 SCWE policy

 SCWE communications

 SCWE and/or safety culture training materials

Direct observations of interactions between workers and management also can provide 

insight into the work environment. Examples of such interactions include pre-job briefs, 

daily status meetings, all-hands meetings, and plant review committee discussions (such 

as a corrective action review committee). Because it is often difficult for NRC special 

inspection teams to observe such interactions without the presence of team members 

impacting those interactions, it is usually helpful to solicit such information from a 

resident inspector (if there are resident inspectors at the site) whose presence in such 

meetings is not unusual or perceived to be so. 

In order to close a chilled work environment allegation, the NRC typically needs 

information specific to the 3 key areas noted above regarding the number of workers 

impacted, the reporting avenues affected, and the types of concerns workers are 

hesitant to raise. Although not an absolute, the NRC has historically viewed a negative 

response rate from the affected group of 20% or higher as a matter potentially needing 

attention by licensee management. This value can vary depending on other factors, for 

example, the safety significance of the work performed by the group. With regard to 

reporting avenues, NRC’s concern increases as more reporting avenues are impacted. 

Furthermore, hesitation to raise concerns to supervision or through the established 

corrective action program is typically of more concern to NRC than if workers are 

reluctant to raise concerns to alternate avenues, such as the ECP or NRC. The type of 

concerns workers indicate they are reluctant to raise plays a key role in whether or not 

the NRC will conclude that the work environment is chilled.3 All 3 areas should be 

considered collectively when determining whether the allegation of a chilled work 

environment is substantiated or not. 

In the context of a chilled work environment allegation, the last evaluation option (CEL) 

indicates that, based on the information provided by the alleger and NRC knowledge 

about the facility SCWE, the NRC has concluded that a chilled work environment exists 

at the facility. It also indicates that NRC has looked at the ability of the licensee to 

recognize the severity of the chilled work environment problem and the effectiveness of 

3

The NRC’s primary interest is that workers feel free to raise nuclear, quality, and radiological concerns. Therefore, 

from a regulatory perspective, the NRC cannot substantiate a chilled work environment unless such concerns are the 

ones the workforce is hesitant to raise.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

143

any actions taken by the licensee in an effort to remedy the problem, and is concerned 

that the licensee is not making sufficient progress. A CEL is placed on the public docket 

and publicly notifies the licensee of the NRC’s concern about the SCWE. A CEL also 

informs the workforce that NRC has engaged the licensee regarding the chilled work 

environment matter and will monitor the licensee’s corrective actions. [See Manual 

Section 5.2.j.6 for detailed discussion regarding the issuance of a CEL and subsequent 

evaluation and closure actions.] 

It is noted that NRC Enforcement Program guidance also calls for the consideration of a 

letter requesting information from the licensee about SCWE impacts resulting from a 

positive finding of discrimination made by DOL during its review of a discrimination 

concern. Regardless of whether NRC has made a similar finding or even completed its 

review of the same matter, this type of letter recognizes that a DOL decision has been 

placed on the public record indicating that an individual was discriminated against by the 

licensee. In this instance, the letter requests the licensee to provide a response to the 

NRC as to whether other workers at the facility may have been “chilled” as a result of the 

DOL finding/decision, and whether any actions were taken by the licensee to mitigate 

that perception. Similarly, if NRC substantiates a discrimination concern in the absence 

of a DOL discrimination claim, NRC’s post-investigation efforts also involve requesting 

the licensee to respond to the potential chilling effect of the substantiated discrimination 

concern. 

The AAA may be requested to participate in ARB discussions related to chilled work 

environment allegations, when appropriate, and should always be consulted when the 

regional or headquarters office is initiating discussion regarding the possible issuance of 

a CEL to the licensee (see Manual Section 5.2.j.6). It is not necessary to request AAA 

participation in the ARB if a request for information is to be sent to the licensee related to 

potential SCWE effects resulting from a positive DOL discrimination finding. 

Beyond the work environment considerations noted above, the responsible action office 

may determine that the state of the SCWE at a particular facility has been so adversely 

affected by negative contributing factors that more substantial regulatory action is 

warranted, such as the issuance of an order with the purpose of providing adequate 

assurance of reasonable protection of public health and safety. Such action may 

include: 

 a request or order that the licensee obtain an independent evaluation of its

environment for raising safety concerns

 an order to establish independent third-party oversight of the environment for raising

safety concerns

Such actions should be coordinated with appropriate levels of NRC management and 

other NRC guidance that may direct review of a licensee’s SCWE (e.g., NRC Inspection 

Manual Chapter 0305). 

5.2.j.3 Consideration of Chilling Effect/Chilled Work Environment Concerns 

Not Related to NRC-Regulated Activity 

As indicated in Manual Section 5.2.j.1 above, a concern is occasionally submitted to the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

144

NRC that a non-NRC-related discrimination matter (e.g., sexual harassment, age 

discrimination, racial discrimination) has “chilled” workers, and that as a result, workers 

will also be unwilling to raise NRC safety issues. In this circumstance, the alleger is to 

be informed that the NRC cannot pursue a discrimination matter that is not under NRC 

regulatory purview. If the individual has not contacted the proper authority with regard to 

the discrimination matter, NRC should make an effort to provide contact information to 

the individual (e.g., EEOC).

With regard to the assertion of a chilling effect or chilled work environment, the alleger 

should be requested to provide specific examples of other workers indicating that the 

non-NRC-related matter has caused them to be hesitant or unwilling to raise a nuclear, 

quality, or radiological safety issue. If such information is provided, the chilling 

effect/chilled work environment concern should be considered by the ARB. If the 

individual cannot provide specific examples indicating that others have been chilled to 

raise nuclear, quality, or radiological safety issues, the action office should not enter the 

concern into AMS and instruct the individual to pursue the non-NRC-related 

discrimination matter through the appropriate authorities. (The concern may be entered 

into AMS as a 'non-allegation" if accompanied by other concerns related to NRCregulated activities.) 

5.2.j.4 Chilling Effect Comments Solicited by NRC during PI&R Inspections 

and Supplemental Reactor Oversight Program (ROP) Inspections for 

Degraded Cornerstones 

During the performance of PI&R Inspections (NRC Inspection Procedure (IP) 71152), 

supplemental ROP inspections to support NRC response to reactor facilities with one or 

more or repetitive degraded cornerstones (i.e., IPs 95001, 95002 and 95003), and other 

special and supplemental inspections related to materials licensees and nuclear industry 

vendors, NRC inspectors solicit comments from site workers regarding the environment 

for raising safety concerns at the site. Comments are occasionally received asserting 

that problems exist with the SCWE. In general, such comments should not be treated as 

allegations, since NRC is directly requesting the feedback with regard to the work 

environment as part of the inspection. If an individual providing such comments during 

one of these inspections asks about the means of NRC response, he/she should be 

informed that feedback will be available in the forthcoming inspection report. 

Notwithstanding the above, inspectors should be sensitive to other concerns raised 

during the above noted inspections that are not in direct response to questions about the 

work environment and that should be considered as potential allegations. As examples, 

if an individual discusses a specific technical concern that meets the definition of an 

allegation or any concern involving potential wrongdoing, such matters should be 

documented separately by the inspector for entry into the allegation program. 

5.2.j.5 Inspecting Chilling Effect/SCWE Concerns at a Vendor 

Since there are no direct regulatory requirements applicable to the viability of a 

corrective action program at a vendor, the licensee imposes its 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix B (or equivalent) requirements as part of the vendor contract. On this basis, 

corrective action programs are routinely evaluated during vendor inspections. Problems 

found during vendor inspections are identified as “non-conformances” (as in non-
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

145

conformance with the contract) rather than violations. Through evaluation of corrective 

actions taken and discussion with vendor employees, NRC vendor inspectors can gain 

perspective on the work environment for raising concerns. 

5.2.j.6 Chilling Effect Letters 

Through application of the NRC’s Enforcement Policy, appropriate enforcement action 

may be taken against a licensee that has discriminated against an employee for raising 

safety concerns. The intent of such action is, in part, to prompt the licensee to take 

actions to mitigate the potential “chilling effect” that the discriminatory act may have 

caused. In addition to informing the licensee about a potential chilling effect related to a 

discrimination concern substantiated by NRC, there are other circumstances wherein 

NRC may request information from the licensee about the work environment at the 

facility and/or inform the licensee that the NRC is concerned that the work environment 

at a facility may be chilled. 

In the case of a discrimination concern filed directly with DOL, the MOU between the 

NRC and DOL states that the two agencies will cooperate to the fullest extent possible in 

every case of alleged discrimination involving employees of NRC licensees. As noted in 

Manual Section 5.2.j.2, when an initial DOL/OSHA investigation concludes that 

discrimination occurred, the NRC staff considers how the DOL finding will affect the 

SCWE. In particular, the staff needs to be assured that awareness in the workplace of 

DOL’s discrimination finding has not created a chilling effect (i.e., has not discouraged 

other employees and contractors from raising safety concerns). The NRC Enforcement 

Manual currently provides detailed guidance on requesting information from the licensee 

about SCWE impacts in such cases (Enforcement Manual, Part II, Section 1.3.17). (The 

Enforcement Manual appears on the agency’s public Web site at: 

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

response to a DOL finding of discrimination, this request for information serves three 

purposes: (1) to notify the licensee publicly of the NRC's concern that the initial DOL 

discrimination finding may have negatively affected the licensee’s SCWE, (2) to obtain 

information on the licensee’s assessment of its employees’ willingness and ability to 

raise safety concerns at the facility and the description of any remedial action the 

licensee has taken or plans to take to address any identified weakness as a result of its 

assessment, and (3) to obtain information on the licensee’s position with regard to 

whether discrimination occurred. It is also appropriate to consider similar 

correspondence to the licensee for findings of discrimination associated with NRCregulated activity made by other external authorities, such as MSPB, OSC, or 

federal/state courts. 

The Enforcement Manual also recognizes that the staff may consider the issuance of 

another communication referred to as a chilling effect letter (CEL). Specifically, a CEL 

may be appropriate in certain circumstances involving allegations and other indications 

of a chilled work environment that do not involve a finding of discrimination. The 

Enforcement Manual directs the staff to this section of the Allegation Manual for 

guidance describing such circumstances. The guidance that follows summarizes the 

factors to consider when deciding to issue a CEL, the process used to make that 

determination, the contents of the CEL, the evaluation of a CEL response, and the 

closure of the CEL. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

146

5.2.j.6(a) General Guidance Regarding CELs 

In addition to the potential chilling effect resulting from NRC or DOL findings of 

discrimination, other licensee actions that the workforce perceives to be 

discriminatory, repressive, or otherwise unresponsive to employee concerns, could 

potentially affect the SCWE. The NRC Enforcement Manual recognizes that these 

other circumstances may warrant the issuance of a CEL if the NRC, when 

considering such circumstances, becomes concerned about the licensee’s 

recognition of a chilled work environment or about the effectiveness of any actions 

taken by the licensee in response. The following discussion describes the 

circumstances under which the issuance of a CEL may be warranted in the absence 

of a finding of discrimination and the process for its issuance, evaluation, and 

closure. 

5.2.j.6(a)(1) What is a CEL? 

A CEL is a regulatory tool targeted toward ensuring that the licensee is taking 

appropriate actions to foster a workplace environment that encourages 

employees (including contractors) to raise safety concerns and to feel free to do 

so without fear of retaliation. The purpose of the CEL is: 

 to notify the licensee of the NRC's concern with the SCWE at its facility on

the public record

 to obtain information about the licensee’s assessment of its employees’

willingness to raise safety concerns at the facility and the description of any

remedial action the licensee has taken or plans to take to address any

identified weakness as a result of its assessment

5.2.j.6(a)(2) Situations That Warrant CEL Issuance 

CELs are intended to have a positive impact on a licensee’s workforce and, 

specifically, on that part of the workforce that the NRC believes is “chilled,” (i.e., 

workers who perceive that the licensee is suppressing or discouraging the raising 

of safety concerns or is not addressing these concerns when they are raised). 

These letters are the tool that the NRC uses to inform workers that the agency 

has engaged their management about its SCWE concern and that the agency 

will monitor the licensee’s actions to address that concern. Such communication 

can have a positive effect on the workers’ willingness to raise issues. However, 

the agency recognizes that issuing a CEL when an already healthy SCWE exists 

could negatively affect the SCWE (i.e., cause individuals to become concerned 

about raising concerns simply based on the NRC’s assertion that others on site 

are chilled). For that reason, the NRC must issue a CEL only when appropriate 

in the absence of a finding of discrimination. The discussion below describes 

situations of this type in which the NRC would normally issue a CEL. 

Section 5.2.j.2 above describes 3 key areas for which information is needed to 

determine if a work environment is chilled, namely: 

 The number and organizational affiliation of workers impacted;
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

147

 The number of reporting avenues to which workers are hesitant to raise

concerns; and

 The types of concerns workers are hesitant to raise.

Below is a nonexclusive list of factors that provides insight into the licensee’s 

SCWE within these 3 key areas. The staff should consider these factors when 

evaluating whether the issuance of a CEL is warranted. The staff should 

evaluate each case on its own merit; however, it should consider past examples 

with similar facts, circumstances, and organizational structure to ensure 

consistency and predictability relating to the issuance of CELs. A list of 

previously issued CELs is available on OE’s webpage at 

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/OE/ under “Quick Links”. No one factor is considered 

to be inherently determinative of a chilled environment. Accordingly, the 

following factors, as applicable, should be considered collectively rather than in 

isolation. In addition, from case to case, the same factor may weigh differently 

depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. 

Lastly, the staff should counterbalance the perceived need for the issuance of a 

CEL in these situations with a determination as to whether the licensee is taking 

timely and effective remedial actions that the NRC anticipates will enhance the 

SCWE in a timely manner. 

 Allegations: Number, Receipt Rate, Nature, and Source

Number of Allegations – Of interest is the number of allegations coming 

from onsite sources over a particular review period compared to the reactor 

industry median over that same review period. [Note: It may be 

appropriate to include a review of allegation concerns from other sources 

as well (e.g., chilling effect concerns from offsite sources or concerns from 

allegers claiming to be providing them on behalf of onsite individuals).] The 

reactor industry median is used for both reactor and materials licensees 

(and other employers subject to NRC authority) because it is derived from a 

homogeneous population and, therefore, is a good comparative number for 

this exercise. Taking into account the varying workforce size at different 

sites, the following guideline can be used to determine which sites may 

warrant further consideration4: 

 1-unit reactor sites (or any site/facility with fewer than 800 persons) with

an onsite allegation volume greater than 2.25 times the median

 2-unit reactor sites (or any site/facility with 800-1100 persons) with an

onsite allegation volume greater than 3 times the median

 3-unit reactor sites (or any site/facility with more than 1100 persons) with

an onsite allegation volume greater than 4.5 times the median

4 These criteria are also used to determine which entities (NRC-licensed site/facility, contractor, or vendor) 

warrant additional discussion in the Annual Allegation Trend Report. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

148

The staff should recognize and take into consideration when using the 

above algorithm that during times of significant site activity, the site 

population may increase substantially (e.g., construction or extensive 

modification activities). For example, if a site with typically less than 800 

persons is experiencing a prolonged shutdown period during which the site 

population is significantly increased, application of the algorithm for a larger 

site population may be considered more appropriate. 

Receipt Rate – The staff should consider whether the allegations were 

received during the review period at an increasing, decreasing or steady 

rate. 

Nature of Concerns – Of interest is: 

 any concern specifically indicating fear or reluctance to raise concerns

(e.g., claims of discrimination, chilled environment concerns, or

indications of fundamental problems with the licensee’s corrective action

program)

 any substantiated chilling effect concern determined by either the NRC or

the licensee

 any concern that may have a significant impact on safety or security

Source of Allegations – Of interest is: 

 a trend in a particular functional organization or contractor group (Note:

an organization’s direct impact on safe operations or decision-making

should be taken into consideration)

 multiple concerned individuals vs. many allegations from a small number

of allegers. (Note: the staff should be careful not to assume a single

source of multiple allegations represents only one alleger. One alleger

may represent others that have asked him/her to submit their concerns

because they are not comfortable doing so themselves.)

 the percentage of anonymous allegers

 NRC Inspection Observations: In addition to observations and findings

identified by routine NRC inspections, PI&R, Special or Supplemental

Inspections can provide historical insight into the SCWE.

PI&R SCWE Observations – IP 71152, “Problem Identification and 

Resolution,” provides a list of questions that the staff can use to assess 

whether impediments to raising concerns exist. The questions are 

designed to address four primary elements of a SCWE: (1) the employees’

willingness to raise concerns and whether management’s behaviors 

encourage them to do so, (2) employee perception of the effectiveness of 

the corrective action program as the primary avenue to raise concerns, (3) 

employee perception of the effectiveness of an alternative program if one 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

149

exists, such as an ECP, and (4) employee perception of the effectiveness 

of management actions to detect and prevent retaliation and chilling effects. 

SCWE Observations in Special and Supplemental Inspections – The 

following special and supplemental inspections may also generate 

observations about the SCWE: 

 IP 35007, "Quality Assurance Program Implementation During

Construction and Pre-Construction Activities" (Appendix 16 - Inspection of

Criterion XVI - Corrective Action)

 IP 40001, “Resolution of Employee Concerns”

 IP 40002, "Inspections to Review Allegations"

 IP 40100, “Independent Safety Culture Assessment Followup”

 IP 40801, "Self-Assessment. Auditing, and Corrective Action at

Permanently Shutdown Reactors"

 IP 43002, "Routine Inspections of Nuclear Vendors"

 IP 43003, “Reactive Inspections at Nuclear Vendors”

 IP 88110, “Quality Assurance: Problem Identification, Resolution and

Corrective Action”

 IP 93100, “Safety-Conscious Work Environment Issue of Concern

Followup”

 IP 95001, “Supplemental Inspection for One or Two White Inputs in a

Strategic Performance Area”

 IP 95002, “Supplemental Inspection for One Degraded Cornerstone or

Any Three White Inputs in a Strategic Performance Area”

 IP 95003, “Supplemental Inspection for Repetitive Degraded

Cornerstones, Multiple Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Yellow Inputs or

One Red Input”

 IP 95003.02, "Guidance for Conducting an Independent NRC Safety

Culture Assessment"

 Licensee Tools to Establish, Maintain and Assess Their SCWE:

Assessments, Policies, Communications, Training, and Corrective Action

Programs

 SCWE/Safety Culture Assessments – Of interest is the scope of a selfassessment or independent survey, significant findings (e.g., functional

area pockets of concern), and actions taken by the licensee to address

identified SCWE weaknesses. Safety culture assessments often include

insights on the cultural SCWE component.

 SCWE Policy Statements – Of interest is language describing

expectations for management behavior to proactively encourage

employees to raise concerns, unrestricted access to multiple avenues for

raising concerns, and prohibitions on retaliation.

 SCWE Communications – Of interest is the media that management uses

to communicate its SCWE expectations, its message, and the frequency

of such communication.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

150

 SCWE Training – Of interest is who is being trained (e.g., all supervisors),

the content of the training (e.g., employee rights, avenues for raising

concerns, related policies, and supervisor expectations) and whether

refresher training is offered and at what frequency.

 ECP – Of interest is the licensee’s ECP data in comparison to allegation

program data trends (e.g., the number of concerns raised within the ECP,

the rate of these concerns over the review period, the nature and safety

significance of the concerns, the source of concerns, any substantiated

chilling effect or discrimination concerns, and the percentage of

anonymous concerns).

 Corrective Action Program – Of interest are any changes in usage trends,

restrictions if any) on writing a condition report, and the existence of any

incentives for limiting the number of employee-raised concerns.

 Specific Events with the Potential to Chill the SCWE

The staff should consider the number of individuals who witnessed the 

event or who are potentially affected by it; the notoriety of the event; the 

position, responsibility, and level of influence of the individual(s) causing the 

chilling effect; and the egregiousness of the behavior. 

 Reporting Avenues Affected by the Chilling Effect

Of interest is which and how many avenues for reporting concerns are 

potentially impacted, including, but not limited to direct communication with 

a supervisor, the CAP, ECP, and the NRC. 

 Licensee’s Remedial Actions in Response to Negative SCWE Trends or an

Event

The staff should place greater weight on this factor than those articulated 

above. Of interest is whether the staff views the licensee’s remedial actions 

to be timely and appropriate and to have a likelihood of success in 

enhancing the SCWE and negating any prior chilling effect. 

5.2.j.6(a)(3) Process for Considering a CEL and Administrative 

Coordination 

The ARB deliberates on the issuance of a CEL that is not associated with a 

finding of discrimination. (As discussed in Manual Section 5.2.j.6, the process for 

considering and issuing requests for information from the licensee related SCWE 

impacts resulting from a finding of discrimination can be found in the 

Enforcement Manual.) Representatives from OE (AAA or designee) and from the 

appropriate regional or headquarters office must participate in these 

deliberations. The process for considering the issuance of a CEL and the 

necessary administrative coordination include the following: 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

151

 The appropriate region or headquarters office shall draft an ARB briefing

sheet that describes the basis and the rationale for issuing the CEL, using the

factors discussed in Manual Section 5.2.j.6(a)(2).

 The AAA or his/her designee should participate on the ARB. If the AAA or

designee is not available, the ARB Chair shall contact the AAA, review the

ARB decisions, and determine the need for additional ARB discussion.

 The ARB Chair, after consultation with the Regional Administrator or Office

Director, as appropriate, will make the final determination on whether to draft

a CEL for concurrence.

 If the ARB Chair determines that the staff should issue a CEL, an

Enforcement Action (EA) number for the CEL will be obtained to track all

related documents. The EA number should appear on the CEL and all related

NRC correspondence. The EA number should not be closed until the staff

issues a letter that acknowledges the NRC’s acceptance of the licensee’s

actions, completed and planned, in response to the CEL. (See Section

5.2.j.6(a)(5)).

 The OE Director or his/her designee and the AAA shall be on concurrence for

the CEL. CELs issued by a region or headquarters office shall be under the

signature authority of the applicable Regional Administrator, Office Director,

or his/her designee.

 The region or headquarters office will communicate the decision to issue a

CEL to the Office of the Executive Director for Operations and, if appropriate,

to the Commission.

5.2.j.6(a)(4) Contents of a CEL 

If the staff determines that a CEL is warranted, the CEL should: 

 Describe the NRC’s concern and its basis and include specific considerations

that led the agency to issue the CEL while recognizing the need to protect the

identities of any allegers involved.

 Reference the NRC’s SCWE Policy Statement entitled, “Freedom of

Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns without Fear of

Retaliation” (Volume 61 of the Federal Register, page 24336; May 14, 1996),

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

Conscious Work Environment,” dated August 25, 2005, or both, to make the

licensee aware of the NRC’s expectations in this area.

 Request that the licensee respond to the NRC’s concerns (typically within 30

days). The nature of the requested response may differ depending on the

extent of the SCWE concern. For example, the letter may include a request

for a management meeting as well as a written response, or it may request

(for broader or more significant issues) the licensee to conduct an

assessment of the SCWE.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

152

 Request that the licensee provide information on its SCWE assessment and

any associated corrective actions and to describe how it will measure the

effectiveness of any corrective actions.

 Instruct the licensee to provide the basis for determining that the number and

the cross-section of individuals interviewed or surveyed as part of its review

and the scope of the interviews and surveys was appropriate.

 Request that the licensee notify the affected members of the workforce of the

issuance of the CEL and the NRC’s concerns and focus on the SCWE.

 Explain that the licensee’s response will be made public. (The staff should

add the final copy of the CEL to the ADAMS and make it publically available.)

 Request that persons independent of the organization or group associated

with the NRC’s concern conduct an assessment of the SCWE.

5.2.j.6(a)(5) Evaluation of the Licensee’s Response and Closure of

CELs 

After the licensee has responded to a CEL, the office responsible for the 

issuance of the CEL, in collaboration with other NRC offices whose participation 

in the review of the licensee’s response is necessitated (e.g., the region, OE, or 

other headquarters office, as appropriate) will review the scope of the licensee’s 

assessment of the work environment, the independence of those involved in the 

evaluation, and the adequacy and effectiveness of any corrective actions 

proposed or taken. Closure of a CEL is contingent upon an NRC determination 

that the licensee has made reasonable progress toward addressing the 

underlying issues that led to the issuance of the CEL. 

5.2.j.6(a)(5)(A) Evaluation of Licensee Surveys/Interviews 

If the licensee conducted surveys or interviews, the staff should evaluate the 

results and conclusions and should: 

 Evaluate the survey/interview questions to determine whether they

involve an employee’s reluctance to raise concerns, his/her reluctance to

self-identify problems, his/her awareness of others who have experienced

negative consequences for raising concerns, management support for

raising concerns and maintaining a SCWE, and the effectiveness of the

licensee’s CAP and ECP (if applicable) in addressing concerns.

 Evaluate the sample size of the surveys or interviews, or both, and

determine whether they included participants from an appropriate crosssection of the population (e.g., management/non-management,

bargaining unit/non-bargaining unit, part time/full time workers, or

contractors) and whether they are representative of the population being

assessed.

 Consider conducting followup interviews or focus groups to validate the

licensee’s assessment.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

153

5.2.j.6(a)(5)(B) Evaluation of Licensee Corrective Actions 

If the licensee’s assessment indicates areas of weakness, the staff should 

evaluate the licensee’s corrective actions for appropriateness and should:

 Consider whether the actions address the underlying problems, whether

they are of sufficient scope and depth, and whether the licensee will

implement them in a timely fashion.

 Examine the adequacy of the effectiveness measures for monitoring the

results of the corrective actions.

 Follow up, as appropriate, to monitor the licensee’s progress toward

improving the SCWE and to determine whether the actions taken have

been effective. For a reactor licensee, the staff has historically conducted

such follow-up activities during quarterly assessments of the CAP.

5.2.j.6(a)(5)(C) Unsatisfactory Licensee Response to CEL

If any aspect of the licensee’s response is not satisfactory, the staff should 

contact the licensee to discuss the need for additional information or should 

conduct inspections to obtain the needed information, or do both. 

5.2.j.6(a)(5)(D) CEL Closure 

The staff should consider closure of the CEL after reviewing the licensee’s 

response(s) and any additional information gathered through followup 

inspections. After the office that issued the CEL, in consultation with the 

other NRC offices that participated in reviewing the licensee’s response (e.g., 

the region, OE, or other headquarters office, as appropriate), determines that 

the licensee’s response is acceptable (i.e., that reasonable progress has 

been made in addressing the underlying issues that led to the issuance of the 

CEL), that office shall issue a letter acknowledging the NRC’s acceptance of 

the licensee’s response. If appropriate, the letter should indicate the NRC’s 

intent to monitor the licensee’s progress toward improving the SCWE through 

baseline inspection activities to verify sustainability of any actions taken. 

For power reactor licensees, the issuance of a CEL represents a theme as 

defined by the Reactor Oversight Process, and the staff’s review of the 

licensee’s response will be instrumental in determining whether a substantive 

cross-cutting issue exists in the SCWE cross-cutting area (See Manual 

Chapter 0305, “Operating Reactor Assessment Program”). For that reason, 

the staff’s assessment and closure of a CEL issued to a power reactor may 

be documented in the mid-cycle or end-of-cycle assessment letter, or in a 

separate letter. See Manual Section 5.9.g.7 for a discussion of how the 

issuance of a CEL pertains to the closure of related allegation concerns. 

5.3 Acknowledgment Letter 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

154

5.3.a Acknowledgment Letter Description 

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 (and all other written correspondence to an alleger) 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, as understood by the NRC, preferably in a separate 

enclosure, along with information relevant to the issues involved (e.g., the Early-ADR and 

DOL processes (if discrimination is alleged), identity protection, important contacts, whether 

concerns are being referred to another entity (like an Agreement State) or whether a request 

for information from the licensee is being considered). (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.1(a)) A 

standardized acknowledgment letter is provided in Manual Exhibit 12, which contains 

templates for acknowledging circumstances commonly encountered as part of allegation 

receipt. Additionally, a brochure describing the NRC allegation program (NUREG/BR 0240, 

“Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC”) is provided to the alleger with the 

acknowledgment letter. 

5.3.b Responsibility for Acknowledgment Letter Issuance When an Allegation is 

Transferred 

If it is determined that the responsibility for evaluating an allegation is to be transferred from 

the receiving office to another action office (see Section 5.6.c regarding NRC allegation 

transfer), and the receiving office makes the transfer promptly, for example, within about one 

week of receipt (i.e., providing ample time for the action office to which the allegation is 

being transferred to meet allegation program acknowledgment letter timeliness guidelines), 

the acknowledgment letter should be issued by the action office to which the allegation is 

transferred. If the receiving office experiences a delay in reassigning the allegation such 

that the acknowledgment letter timeliness goal is jeopardized (for example, if the allegation 

is not transferred until two or more weeks after the allegation is initially received), the 

receiving office should issue a brief acknowledgment letter to the alleger, indicating that the 

allegation is being transferred to another NRC office and that the alleger will receive 

feedback from that office in the near future. The subsequent letter to the alleger from the 

action office to which the allegation is transferred will contain the components of the 

standard acknowledgment letter, including the enclosure restating the alleger’s concerns, as 

understood by the NRC. The letter should normally be sent within 30 calendar days of the 

date of the allegation transfer. 

5.3.c Verification of Letter Receipt 

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 correspondence electronically (e-mail), the 

OAC should request the alleger to verify receipt of the information.] (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.J.1(a)) Acknowledgment letters to the alleger may be sent by U.S. Certified Mail, which

will prompt the forwarding of a signed return receipt, or by an alternative private carrier. If 

an alternative private carrier is used, a signed record of receipt by the alleger or an 

authorized agent, such as a relative, a roommate, or other authorized person, must also be 

obtained. The action office may use an alternate post office box for the return address 

rather than an NRC address as an added measure of alleger identity protection. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

155

5.3.d Acknowledgment Letter Marking 

To help prevent the inadvertent release of correspondence to an alleger to third parties by 

NRC staff, the allegation number is to be clearly typed on the front page of the 

acknowledgment letter and on the upper right corner of each subsequent page. This will 

help reduce the possibility of staff not recognizing that the letter concerns an allegation and 

may contain alleger identifying information. In addition, the OAC will clearly stamp "This 

document identifies an alleger (or confidential source)" on the bottom of each page of any 

hard copies of correspondence to or from allegers provided to the staff, which contains the 

identity of an alleger or other information which could identify the alleger. Original 

documents maintained under the control of the OAC do not need to be stamped in this 

manner. 

5.3.e Inclusion of Early ADR Offer and Related Information 

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. Additionally, a brochure 

describing the Early ADR process, NUREG/BR 0313, “Pre-Investigation ADR Program,” is 

provided with the acknowledgment letter. 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 a prima facie showing 

of potential discrimination has been articulated by the alleger before Early ADR is offered.] 

(8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.1(b)) 

5.3.f Informing the Alleger About Possible Limitations on Feedback Regarding 

Security Concerns 

For sensitive, security-related concerns, the acknowledgment letter will reiterate the alleger’s 

concerns but will inform the alleger that NRC, following evaluation of the concerns, may only 

be able to provide limited information regarding the staff’s review, assessment, and findings. 

The enclosure to the acknowledgment letter describing the alleger’s security-related 

concerns should not contain any marking indicating that it may contain sensitive security 

information. Since it is only a restatement of an alleger’s assertion, and since the staff has 

no control over the distribution of the letter once it is sent to the alleger, any such marking 

would only cause unwarranted attention to the information in the acknowledgment letter 

enclosure. The letter shall not include classified, Safeguards, or sensitive security 

information. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.1(c)) 

5.3.g Acknowledgment (or Other) Letter Returned to Action Office 

If an allegation acknowledgment (or other) letter to an alleger is returned to the action office 

by the delivery service (for example, if the action office is informed that the letter was 

undeliverable or that there was no such address), the OAC should attempt the following: 

 Review the allegation file to determine if the correct address was entered on the

envelope. If not, resend the acknowledgment (or other) letter using the correct address.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

156

 If there are no discrepancies in the alleger contact information, the OAC should attempt

to contact the alleger by any other available means (e.g., telephone, electronic mail) to

determine why the letter was not claimed. If the matter is resolved, resend the

acknowledgment (or other) letter to the correct address.

 If the OAC is unsuccessful in contacting the alleger by telephone or electronic mail, a

final effort should be made to obtain contact information for the individual through other

means. For example, if it is known that the alleger is a licensee employee, the OAC may

request assistance from an NRC resident or specialist inspector in obtaining contact

information or in arranging a subsequent contact with the alleger. Additionally, the OAC

may attempt to obtain contact information by way of Internet directory sites. Also, in

some instances, OI has offered support in obtaining contact information for an alleger. If

the matter is resolved, resend the acknowledgment (or other) letter to the correct

address.

 Lastly, if the address matches the address noted in the allegation file, and other attempts

to contact the alleger are unsuccessful, resend the letter via standard mail (U.S. Postal

Service). If the address is correct, the letter will be delivered to that address. If the

address is incorrect, or if the alleger is no longer at the address, the letter will be

returned to the action office.

If, after attempting the above actions, the OAC is unable to contact the alleger, no additional 

effort to contact the alleger is necessary. The staff should continue its efforts to evaluate the 

submitted allegation concerns (excluding concerns involving alleged discrimination which 

cannot be pursued without the alleger’s cooperation). The action office may take credit for 

the issuance of an acknowledgment letter in such a circumstance using the date the original 

acknowledgment letter was sent. 

5.4 Interfacing with the Alleger During Allegation Evaluation 

5.4.a Advantages of Interaction with the Alleger During Allegation Evaluation 

Engaging the alleger during allegation evaluation is beneficial because it helps ensure that: 

 the NRC and the alleger share a mutual understanding of the concerns raised;

 that pertinent information is obtained from the alleger;

 that the alleger is informed of NRC’s intention to consider an RFI to the licensee, if

appropriate; and

 NRC’s conclusions regarding the concerns are provided to the alleger after the NRC has

completed its evaluation, affording an opportunity for alleger assessment and feedback.

Although an alleger’s involvement is preferred, the agency recognizes that some individuals 

prefer to remain anonymous, or, even when their identity is known, not to be contacted by 

NRC staff after initially raising a concern. In all instances when an alleger has requested no 

further contact, a reasonable effort should be made to communicate with the alleger to 

ensure that all pertinent allegation-related information is obtained and to discuss the value of 

continued involvement in the allegation process (see Manual Section 3.1.i). Furthermore, in 

its communications with the alleger, the staff should encourage the alleger to, at a minimum, 

accept documentation of the staff’s evaluation efforts to facilitate effective communication of 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

157

NRC's conclusions and obtain alleger feedback. At various stages during the evaluation of 

the allegation, the responsible Branch Chief, with support from the OAC, should consider 

whether an additional contact with the alleger should be made to obtain more detail related 

to the concerns raised. Additionally, before providing closure documentation to the alleger, 

responsible NRC staff should consider whether it would be appropriate to contact the alleger 

by phone to facilitate understanding of the actions taken to address his/her concerns. 

Specific consideration should be given to those concerns the staff is unable to substantiate 

involving complex technical issues, high profile events, discrimination or wrongdoing 

allegations. 

5.4.b Alleger Interview 

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 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.J.2) [Note: If an alleger visits the NRC action office for the interview, it is advised that the

alleger be directed not to sign the visitor log at the reception area, or if some form of sign-in 

is required, that the alleger’s signature be recorded in a location other than on the visitor log. 

This action is suggested for alleger identity protection purposes since licensee personnel 

are frequent visitors to the NRC regional and headquarters offices and could identify that the 

alleger had visited the NRC by observation of other signatures on the visitor log.] 

5.4.c Location of Alleger Interview 

Any meeting between NRC and an alleger on-site may compromise the alleger's identity. 

However, if unavoidable, the meeting should be arranged at an onsite location that is 

comfortable for the alleger and that will provide as much privacy as possible. An alleger 

may wish to meet in person at an offsite location to provide his/her concerns to the NRC. In 

this instance, effort should be made to accommodate the alleger’s request. However, it is 

important that the location of the information exchange be comfortable and safe for both the 

alleger and NRC staff obtaining the information. If the alleger requests to meet at an offsite 

location, the staff member who is to obtain the information should contact the OAC and 

his/her supervisor to obtain concurrence and to assure that the information exchange occurs 

at an acceptable location. Consideration should be given to having another NRC staff 

member accompany the interviewer to increase the accuracy of the information recorded. 

5.4.d Alleger Request to Actively Participate in NRC Evaluation or for Verification 

of NRC Completion of Requested Evaluation Efforts 

5.4.d.1 Alleger Request to Actively Participate in NRC Allegation Evaluation 

On occasion, an alleger who is not concerned about the protection of his/her identity will 

request that he/she be permitted to actively participate in NRC’s evaluation of the 

allegation. It is recognized that the alleger provides valuable insight with regard to 

his/her concerns, and NRC employees are instructed to obtain as much information as 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

158

possible from the alleger when receiving an allegation. While all input provided by the 

alleger during initial intake and during the course of NRC’s evaluation is accepted and 

considered, the alleger shall not be permitted to actively participate with NRC in its 

allegation inspection/investigation/review activities. When a concerned individual raises 

a concern internally to his/her employer, it follows that he/she may take part in the 

employer’s response effort. However, when a concerned individual submits an 

allegation to the NRC, he/she is submitting the concern(s) to an external regulatory 

authority. In order to maintain the integrity of the allegation process, the external 

regulatory authority (NRC) must conduct an independent, unbiased evaluation. For this 

reason, it would be inappropriate to allow the alleger to, for example, be included as a 

member of an inspection team that has been assigned to evaluate an allegation 

concern. 

When discussing the need for NRC’s allegation evaluation to be independent, an alleger 

will occasionally question how the NRC can consider a licensee’s response to an RFI to 

be an independent review. In this instance, the alleger should be informed that licensee 

feedback is requested because the licensee has primary responsibility for ensuring safe 

operation of the facility through ready access to site personnel, equipment, and 

documentation. The NRC does not participate in the licensee’s review or suggest 

outcomes. The licensee’s feedback is only used as an additional source of information 

that NRC can evaluate as part of its efforts to determine whether the allegation concern 

is substantiated. As part of the review of a licensee’s RFI response, it is NRC’s 

responsibility to judge whether the licensee’s overall response or aspects of the 

response have been mischaracterized in terms of validity and/or interpretation of safety 

and regulatory significance. If any such misinterpretations are identified, NRC will 

challenge the licensee’s feedback and consider alternate means to support its 

conclusion regarding the validity of the allegation concern. 

5.4.d.2 Alleger Requests for Specific NRC Allegation Evaluation Actions or 

NRC Verification that Requested Actions Were Completed 

In submitting an allegation, the alleger will sometimes request or suggest that NRC take 

specific actions as part of its evaluation effort. Since the alleger is familiar with the 

concern and provides valuable insight, NRC will often implement some or all of the 

alleger’s suggested actions during the course of the evaluation. In evaluating the 

allegation, NRC will follow all leads to their logical conclusion. This may or may not 

involve the completion of all actions requested or suggested by the alleger. 

If an alleger requests specific NRC action in response to his/her allegation concern, the 

alleger should be informed that: 

- NRC has accepted and reviewed all of the information provided by the alleger. 

- Based on that review, a course of action was developed by NRC and the information 

was provided to the inspectors reviewing and/or agents investigating the concern. 

- To maintain the integrity of the inspection/investigation process, NRC protects the 

details regarding the inspections/investigations it conducts. 

In addition, if an alleger asks whether NRC has completed a requested action, such as 

interviewing a specific individual suggested by the alleger, the alleger should be 

informed that: 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

159

- To protect the integrity of the inspection/investigation process, and to ensure that 

those individuals who are interviewed are candid with NRC, we can neither confirm 

nor deny who was interviewed. 

- NRC trusts that you (the alleger) understand the need for NRC to maintain the 

sensitive nature of these interactions. 

- When the evaluation is complete, the alleger may request information related to the 

allegation concern under the FOIA (however, interviewee names and other 

identifying information will be redacted from the records that are released in 

accordance with FOIA guidance). 

5.5 Evaluation by NRC Technical Staff 

5.5.a Implementing Assigned Allegation Follow-up Actions 

Staff implement the allegation follow-up activities prescribed by the ARB or as directed by 

management to address an overriding safety issue. These activities may include technical 

review or inspection by responsible staff, or the review of documentation generated by other 

organizations that have been requested to provide input related to the allegation (i.e., 

information requested from the affected licensee via an RFI or from another NRC regional or 

headquarters office, or the results of investigations or evaluations conducted by NRC OI, 

DOJ, DOL, a State agency, or another Federal agency). After completing inspection 

activities or review as prescribed assigned by the ARB or as directed by management to 

address an overriding safety issue, technical staff will notify designated responsible staff and 

the OAC of the completed actions so that allegation status can be tracked and subsequent 

allegation process activities may be initiated (e.g., the development of closure 

documentation). (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.3(a)) 

5.5.b Documenting Allegation Concern Evaluation 

The technical staff will document 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. [Note: See Manual Section 5.9 for 

guidance regarding staff development of allegation closure documentation.] (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.J.3(b)) 

5.5.c Considering Generic or Potential Wrongdoing Implications during 

Allegation Evaluation 

Follow-up of allegations should consider not only the specific allegation concern but the 

overall area of concern, including the potential for generic implications and wrongdoing. For 

example, an allegation directed toward an item or activity that is not safety-related may 

affect a safety-related item or activity as a result of generic implications. When a number of 

allegations and/or allegation concerns point to a broader problem, the action office should 

consider broadening the scope of the inquiry to determine the extent of the problem. 

5.6 Allegation Transfers, RFIs, and Referrals 

5.6.a Considering an Allegation Transfer, RFI, or Referral 

Other actions that may be considered in support of allegation evaluation are (8.8 Handbook, 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

160

Section II.J.4(a)(i)): 

 Transfer of an allegation or specific concerns within an allegation to the appropriate

regional or headquarters office;

 Requesting information from a licensee via an RFI;

 A request for input from another NRC headquarters office through a TIA or TAR; or

 A referral to another government agency or other external entity.

[Note: Normally, ARB approval is obtained before the actions noted in Bullet 1 through

Bullet 4 above 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

NRC’s jurisdiction, the OAC can do the following 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.]

Matters necessitating referral to law enforcement agencies shall be coordinated with OI. (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.J.4(a)(ii)) 

Matters necessitating referral to an Agreement State should be coordinated with the 

appropriate RSAO. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(a)(iii)) 

5.6.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 via 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(b)) 

For a concern that is not within NRC jurisdiction, the action office may inform the concerned 

individual that the concern will be forwarded to the appropriate external organization or 

entity and/or provide contact information for the appropriate external organization or entity to 

the concerned individual so that the concerned individual may contact the external 

organization or entity directly, if he/she so chooses. In these instances, NRC should not act 

as an intermediary between the concerned individual and the external organization or entity, 

and the concerned individual should be so informed. 

5.6.c Allegation Transfers and Allegation-Related TIAs or TARs 

5.6.c.1 Allegation Transfer 

When a regional or headquarters office receives an allegation and determines that 

oversight responsibility for the allegation should be transferred to another regional or 

headquarters office, the offices must contact each other before the transfer. The office 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

161

to which the allegation is to be transferred should be in agreement that it is the 

appropriate action office for 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(C)(i)) 

5.6.c.2 Resolution of Differences Regarding Allegation Transfer 

If the receiving office and another action office cannot reach agreement on the 

assignment of responsibility for evaluating the allegation, the assignment should be 

negotiated between the respective ARB chairpersons. If resolution cannot be reached, 

the AAA will attempt to facilitate the discussion and, if necessary, propose a solution. If 

resolution cannot be facilitated by the AAA, the issue of responsibility shall be escalated 

to higher levels of management. 

5.6.c.3 Allegation-Related TIAs and TARs 

When a regional or headquarters office determines that technical assistance is needed 

from another headquarters office in reviewing an allegation through a TIA (NRR) or TAR 

(NMSS, NRO, 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, so that the headquarters office from which technical assistance is being 

requested is made aware of allegation response timeliness issues. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.J.4(c)(ii)) The document requesting technical assistance should reference the 

allegation number but not include the alleger’s name or any other alleger identifying 

information in either the cover document or any attachments. An appropriate allegation 

cover sheet (NRC Form 761 or 762) should be attached to the documents to ensure 

appropriate handling by staff to protect the alleger’s identity. The action office OAC 

should maintain periodic contact with technical review personnel and the OAC in the 

assisting office, as appropriate, to obtain status of the review being conducted by the 

assisting office and to provide reminders to the assisting office with regard to allegation 

response timeliness issues. An allegation-related TAR or TIA is not to be considered a 

public document and should not be placed into ADAMS or docketed. 

5.6.d Requests for Information from the Licensee 

5.6.d.1 Policy Regarding the Issuance of an RFI to the Licensee 

NRC policy regarding the issuance of an RFI to a licensee to obtain input related to the 

evaluation of an allegation is described in the bullets below: 

 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(i), 1st

Bullet)

 A licensee has primary responsibility for ensuring safe operation of the facility and

can promptly address issues through ready access to site personnel, equipment, and

documentation related to allegation concerns; therefore, action offices should

request information from the licensee in support of allegation closure whenever
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

162

possible and appropriate, and in all instances involving an overriding safety issue. 

(8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(i), 2nd Bullet) 

 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 NRC

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(i), 3rd Bullet)

 Other items to be considered by the ARB in deciding whether or not to request

information from the licensee include 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. (8.8 Handbook,

Section II.J.4(d)(i), 4th Bullet)

 Additional guidance in this area is provided in Manual Section 5.6.d.4 and Manual

Exhibit 13, “Allegation Review Board Worksheet.” This worksheet is intended to

support discussion at the ARB when an RFI to the licensee is being considered. (8.8

Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(i), 5th Bullet)

5.6.d.2 Conditions Inhibiting the Issuance of an RFI to the Licensee 

A licensee may be requested to provide information regarding an overriding safety issue 

in any circumstance, as deemed appropriate. However, in other circumstances, a 

request for information from the licensee normally should not be considered if any of the 

following conditions apply: (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(ii)) 

• Information cannot be released in sufficient detail to the licensee without

compromising the identity of the alleger (unless the alleger has no objection to the

NRC’s requesting information from the licensee and understands the possibility that

his or her identity may be compromised). (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(ii), 1st

Bullet))

• The licensee could compromise an NRC investigation or inspection because of

knowledge gained by the licensee from the RFI. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(ii),

2

nd

 Bullet))

• 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(ii), 3rd Bullet))

• 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.

(8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(ii), 4th Bullet))

5.6.d.3 Requesting Information from the Licensee in Response to an 

Overriding Safety Issue 

If an allegation raises an overriding safety issue, NRC staff will normally issue an RFI to 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

163

the licensee (verbally first, then in writing) regarding the allegation regardless of any 

factor under Manual Section 5.6.d.2 above. In this instance, the consideration of a 

waiting period for alleger feedback regarding the proposed RFI (discussed in Manual 

Section 5.6.d.5) 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 overriding safety issue. In this instance, the alleger is 

normally given an opportunity to voice any objection regarding the RFI. If sufficient effort 

is made to evaluate feedback provided by the alleger or to contact the alleger (if no 

feedback has been provided) and the staff continues to believe that the RFI is 

warranted, the staff may proceed with the RFI despite the alleger’s objection or lack of 

response.] (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(iii)) 

5.6.d.4 ARB Considerations Regarding an Allegation-Related RFI to the 

Licensee 

5.6.d.4(a) ARB Discussion Related to a Proposed RFI 

MD 8.8 requires a number of issues to be considered when deciding whether an 

allegation concern will be reviewed/inspected by the NRC technical staff, 

investigated by OI, evaluated by a licensee in response to an allegation-related RFI, 

evaluated by an external agency or entity, or whether a combination of these actions 

will be employed. To assist the staff in making this determination and describing the 

basis for the action assigned by the ARB, a worksheet has been developed 

delineating current guidance, as well as additional direction involving the 

consideration of trends in allegations, NRC inspection and investigation history, and 

other activities (see Manual Section 5.6.d.4(b) and Manual Exhibit 13). In some 

cases, it may be appropriate to conduct an NRC inspection even though an RFI was 

sent to the licensee. 

In determining whether to issue an RFI to the licensee regarding one or more 

concerns within an allegation, provided the conditions of Manual Section 5.6.d.2 do 

not apply, the ARB should also consider the following: 

o Could the release of information inadvertently bring harm to the alleger?

o Has the alleger voiced objections to the NRC requesting information from the

licensee in writing regarding his/her allegation concerns?

o What is the licensee's past performance in dealing with allegation-related RFIs,

including the likelihood that the licensee will effectively investigate, document,

and resolve the allegation concern?

o Has the alleger already taken this concern to the licensee with unsatisfactory

results? If the answer is “yes,” if the concern is within NRC's jurisdiction, and if

the alleger objects to the RFI, a written RFI to the licensee should normally not

be pursued.

o Are resources to inspect/investigate available within the regional or headquarters

office?

After considering the above criteria (provided the conditions of Section 5.6.d.2 do not 

apply), the ARB may recommend an RFI to the licensee without meeting all of the 

criteria, if adequate justification exists, the ARB affirms that justification, and the 

justification is documented in the allegation file. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

164

5.6.d.4(b) Allegation RFI Worksheet 

Manual Exhibit 13, “Allegation Review Board Worksheet - Considering a Request for 

Information to the Licensee,” is supplied as guidance for use by the responsible 

Branch Chief or designee, if desired, to support discussion at the ARB when an RFI 

is being considered. The specific ARB decision regarding an RFI and the basis for 

that decision shall be documented in the ARB meeting summary. If the RFI 

worksheet is used to document the ARB decision regarding an RFI, the completed 

worksheet shall be maintained in the allegation file. 

There will be certain situations when the use of the RFI worksheet (or equivalent) is 

unnecessary because the actions compelled as a result of the concern raised do not 

involve an RFI to the licensee. Examples: 

- Agreement State concerns – if processed as an allegation, NRC is compelled to 

refer the concern to the Agreement State for evaluation. 

- Reactor offsite emergency preparedness concerns – NRC is compelled to refer 

these concerns to FEMA for evaluation. 

- Discrimination concerns for which the underlying technical concern is already 

resolved – in these situations, the discrimination concern will be evaluated either 

via Early ADR, OI investigation, or it will not be evaluated because the alleger 

does not establish a prima facie showing of potential discrimination, refuses to 

participate in an OI investigation, or formally withdraws the discrimination 

concern. In no circumstance would NRC send a discrimination concern involving 

NRC protected activity to the licensee for evaluation via an RFI. 

5.6.d.5 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. The 

fact that an alleger is aware that an RFI may be or will be provided to the licensee is 

normally confirmed via the acknowledgment letter to the alleger. However, this 

understanding may be otherwise documented (e.g., during the initial documented 

contact with the alleger, or in a telephone conversation record). (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.J.4(d)(iv))

If the alleger cannot be reached by telephone and if the RFI option has not been 

previously discussed, a letter (usually the acknowledgment letter) may be used to inform 

the alleger of the NRC’s intent to submit the RFI to the licensee. The letter is to inform 

the alleger that NRC will evaluate the licensee’s response actions and that the alleger 

will be informed of the NRC’s evaluation and conclusions regarding the licensee’s 

feedback. If the alleger does not respond or has an objection to the RFI but does not 

respond to the NRC letter within a reasonable time frame (e.g., 10-14 calendar days 

from receipt of the NRC letter), the RFI may be submitted to the licensee despite the 

alleger’s objection or lack of response after the NRC has considered the factors 

described in Manual Sections 5.6.d.2, 5.6.d.3, and 5.6.d.4. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

165

5.6.d.6 RFI Letter to the Licensee 

The letter transmitting the RFI to the licensee should include as much specific 

information as possible about the allegation concern to enable the licensee to conduct a 

comprehensive evaluation. However, caution must be taken with the amount of detail 

provided to the licensee so as not to compromise the identity of the alleger. If the staff 

cannot include sufficient detail in the RFI letter without jeopardizing the alleger’s identity, 

the NRC should either inspect the allegation in its entirety or conduct additional 

inspection activities to supplement information to be obtained from the licensee in its 

response to the RFI. 

5.6.d.6(a) RFI Level of Detail

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 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 NRC 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 interviews are to be conducted or if samples of 

documentation, systems, structures, or components are to be evaluated, 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 also expected to note any potential compliance issues related to violation 

of NRC requirements identified during the course of the review. Letters requesting 

information from licensees regarding allegations are not issued on the public docket. 

A standardized letter requesting information from the licensee is available in Manual 

Exhibit 14. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(v), Bullets 1 through 7) 

NRC is not limited to providing only a description of the alleger’s concern. If 

additional information is needed by the NRC to thoroughly address the concern, it 

should be requested in the RFI in a manner that does not limit the licensee’s 

evaluation.

5.6.d.6(b) RFI Containing Security-Related Information

Letters requesting information from the licensee regarding allegations that contain 

security-related information should be treated as SUNSI and should be handled in 

accordance with established agency guidance. This requirement refers to 

information requests concerning 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 handling 

requirements differ between allegation information and sensitive security-related 

information, the more restrictive guidance applies. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.J.4(d)(v), Bullets 8 and 9)
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

166

5.6.d.6(c) Request for Licensee Callback 

The letter requesting information from the licensee shall also request that the 

licensee contact the NRC to ensure a common understanding of the scope of the 

allegation and the NRC’s expectations for follow-up and response, and to discuss the 

licensee’s plans for evaluating the concerns that are the subject of the RFI. (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(v), Bullet 10) The licensee shall be requested to contact 

the NRC prior to, or as early into the licensee’s conduct of the evaluation as possible. 

A record of the conversation with the licensee shall be included in the allegation file. 

Manual Exhibit 25 provides a form that may be used to document the licensee’s 

callback with regard to an RFI. During this discussion, the staff should be mindful 

not to dictate specific requirements that may restrict or limit the licensee’s response. 

Rather, this discussion is intended to ensure that the actions proposed by the 

licensee to evaluate the allegation concern(s) appear likely to result in a product that 

meets the NRC’s stated expectations and thoroughly addresses the concern(s) 

raised. If upon completion of this or subsequent discussions, it is determined that 

the licensee’s plan of action is unlikely to be successful, the responsible Branch 

Chief will reconvene the ARB to consider a follow up telephone call with senior 

licensee management, or NRC inspection activity. If the licensee does not contact 

the NRC within 10 working days of receiving the RFI letter, it is appropriate for NRC 

(the OAC or other assigned staff) to contact the licensee to obtain feedback 

regarding the licensee’s plans for evaluating the concerns noted in the RFI.

5.6.d.6(d) Internal Routing of RFI Letters 

Internal NRC routing of allegation-related RFI letters, and particularly those 

containing SUNSI Security-Related Information shall be limited to NRC and NRC 

contractor personnel with a need-to-know the information for the conduct of official 

business. Use NRC Form 762, “Sensitive Allegation Material” cover sheets for 

internal routing of allegation RFI letters to licensees. Additional coversheets related 

to SUNSI Security-Related Information are not required. 

5.6.d.6(e) RFI Letter Transmittal 

The RFI letter is sent to the licensee via hard-copy. In order to facilitate the 

timeliness of the licensee’s response efforts, the RFI letter may be sent to the 

licensee at the same time via facsimile, provided the licensee can assure that an 

individual with a need-to-know will immediately retrieve the facsimile upon receipt, so 

that others without a need-to-know cannot access the information. At this time, email transmittal of the RFI letter is not permitted because protection of the 

information cannot be guaranteed. [Note: If CSO adopts a separate policy in the 

future to address encryption of transmitted data, this prohibition will be reconsidered 

at that time.] 

5.6.d.6(f) Summary of RFI Letter Administrative Guidelines 

The following list summarizes the administrative guidelines that apply to the RFI 

letter along with the RFI letter attributes discussed in Manual Sections 5.6.d.6(a), 

5.6.d.6(b), 5.6.d.6(c), 5.6.d.6(d), and 5.6.d.6(e) above: 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

167

The RFI letter should: 

- Provide reference to the related allegation number on the cover page and in the 

upper right hand corner of each subsequent page 

- Be written in a manner that does not include the identity of the alleger or 

information that could permit the licensee to identify the alleger (see Manual 

Section 4.1.c). If it is appropriate to provide the licensee with the name of the 

alleger or other individuals in order to review the RFI, the names should not be 

included in the RFI letter. Rather, the names should be provided in a telephone 

conversation with appropriate licensee staff as the regional or headquarters 

office initially forwards the RFI letter. 

- Request a licensee response within a specific time frame (usually 30 calendar 

days) 

- Request the licensee to limit distribution of the RFI letter, and whatever 

information may be enclosed with it, to individuals with a need-to-know. 

- Request that the licensee’s response be provided only to the responsible OAC, 

with no additional copies to other NRC staff, and that the response not to be 

provided to the Document Control Desk. For OACs that maintain a separate post 

office box, licensees should be requested to send the response to the OAC post 

office box and not to the office docket room. 

- Convey NRC’s expectation that the licensee's evaluation of the concern(s) is 

independent, thorough, objective, and of sufficient scope and depth to resolve 

the concern(s) and that the licensee’s response describes how these criteria 

were met 

- Convey NRC’s expectation that the licensee evaluator’s qualifications and 

independence are appropriate to evaluate the concern(s) and that the licensee’s 

response describes how this criterion was met 

- Convey NRC’s expectation that the licensee provide the basis for (1) determining 

the number and cross-section of individuals interviewed and the interview 

questions used, if interviews are to be conducted during the course of the 

evaluation; and (2) the adequacy of sample sizes, if samples of documentation, 

systems, structures, or components are to be evaluated during the course of the 

evaluation

- Request the licensee to contact the NRC to ensure a common understanding of 

the scope of the allegation and the NRC’s expectations for follow-up and 

response, and to discuss the licensee’s plans for evaluating the concerns that 

are the subject of the RFI 

- Request the licensee to include in its response, a description of the results of 

causal analyses and generic implications, along with any corrective actions taken 

as a result of any substantiated concerns 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

168

- Request the licensee to include in its response, the identification of any 

compliance issue with regard to NRC regulatory requirements or NRC 

commitments, and to describe the corrective actions taken or planned, and the 

corrective action documentation that addressed the issue 

- For an RFI letter that does not involve SUNSI Security-Related Information, any 

page of the letter that contains a description of an allegation concern should be 

marked “NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE” at the top and bottom of the page. It 

is preferable that the cover letter to the allegation request for information be 

written generally so that no information about specific allegation concerns is 

contained in it. In this manner, only the pages of an attachment describing the 

concerns would need to be marked. Do not add additional page marking such as 

“Sensitive Allegation Material,” as this only further relates the document to an 

allegation. 

- For an RFI letter that does involve SUNSI Security-Related Information, the letter 

should be marked "Official Use Only - Security Related Information" on the top 

and bottom of each page. The letter should instruct the licensee to mark the top 

of each page of its response as "Security Related Information - Withhold under 

10 CFR 2.390." It is preferable that the cover letter be written generally so that 

no information about specific allegation concerns is contained in it. 

- If the allegation is received in writing, the alleger’s incoming correspondence 

normally should not be sent to the licensee as part of the RFI letter. Rather, the 

alleger’s concerns should be summarized in an enclosure to the RFI letter 

without providing information that could identify the alleger. If the alleger has 

agreed to be identified, and identifying the alleger to the licensee serves the 

needs of the agency, information that could identify the alleger, other than his/her 

name and contact information, can be included in the RFI letter. If the ARB 

determines that the safety implications of a specific allegation warrant providing a 

copy of the information supplied by the alleger to the licensee as part of the RFI 

letter rather than an NRC summary of the information, responsible staff should 

attempt to notify the alleger of the NRC’s proposed action and obtain agreement 

from the alleger, in writing, if possible. If the alleger objects to the inclusion of 

his/her original correspondence in the RFI letter, NRC staff should acknowledge 

the alleger’s feedback and, if possible, come to an agreement with the alleger as 

to the content of the information that will be transmitted to the licensee. If the 

alleger objects to the inclusion of his/her original correspondence in the RFI letter 

and NRC does not agree with the alleger’s objection because the matter 

represents an overriding safety issue, the NRC may include the alleger’s 

incoming correspondence in the RFI letter over the alleger’s objection. The 

results of any such interface with the alleger should be documented in the 

allegation file. 

- Regarding the content of the information provided to the licensee for evaluation, 

NRC is not limited to only providing a description of the alleger’s concern(s). The 

RFI letter should also request additional specific information needed by the NRC 

to address the concern thoroughly, but in a manner that does not limit the 

licensee’s evaluation. Additional questions may be added to the RFI, as deemed 

appropriate by the action office, to prompt licensee follow up on targeted issues. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

169

[Note: On occasion, a response will be requested from the licensee regarding an 

allegation concern that is vague, lacks specificity, or is unclear. In such 

instances, NRC should acknowledge in the enclosure to the RFI letter that the 

concern is vague, or lacks specificity or clarity, and ask the licensee to evaluate 

the concern to the best of their ability, given the information provided.] 

- If the alleger has previously raised the issue internally to the licensee and was 

not satisfied with the licensee’s feedback, and does not object to NRC providing 

an RFI to the licensee regarding the concern, the letter to the licensee should, in 

addition to describing the concern, describe the asserted inadequacy in the 

licensee’s internal response efforts. 

5.6.d.7 Licensee Questions about Allegation-Related RFIs and Requests for 

Extension of Response Time 

5.6.d.7(a) Licensee Request for Additional Detail 

During the course of the licensee’s review in response to an allegation-related RFI, 

the licensee may on occasion contact the NRC (usually the OAC or the branch chief 

responsible for oversight of the facility that is the subject of the allegation) to ask for 

additional specific information regarding the allegation concern to facilitate the 

licensee’s review effort. It is acceptable for staff to review the allegation file based 

on such a request to determine whether there is any additional information that can 

be provided to the licensee. In determining what, if any, additional information can 

be provided to the licensee, staff should be sensitive to alleger identity protection 

considerations. If the staff determines that additional specific information cannot be 

provided the licensee without jeopardizing the protection of the alleger’s identity, the 

licensee contact should be informed that the NRC has reviewed the allegation file 

and can provide no additional information. Feedback to the licensee in response to 

such requests may be provided telephonically, and should be documented in the 

allegation file. 

5.6.d.7(b) Alleger Identity Protection Considerations when Discussing 

an RFI with the Licensee 

Although many licensee employees are aware of the NRC’s alleger identity 

protection provisions, on occasion, during conversations with NRC regarding an 

allegation-related RFI, a licensee representative will surmise the identity of the 

alleger based on the information provided in the RFI letter, and ask the NRC contact 

if it is acceptable to contact the individual for additional information during the course 

of its review. The NRC response to such a question should be similar to the 

following... "The NRC will neither confirm nor deny that a specific person contacted 

the NRC with concerns”...and that....”the licensee can talk to anyone it deems 

necessary in order to investigate and resolve the concerns.” If the licensee 

representative provides a specific question about the allegation concerns that he/she 

believes will facilitate the licensee’s review effort, the OAC (or other NRC contact) 

will inform the licensee that he/she will review the allegation file to determine whether 

additional information may be provided to the licensee. While the OAC's (or other 

NRC contact's) follow up action in this instance may also involve contacting the 

alleger in an effort to obtain additional information, the OAC (or other NRC contact) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

170

will not acknowledge that this course of action was taken when providing feedback to 

the licensee. 

5.6.d.7(c) Licensee Request to Withhold Provision of Information to 

NRC in Response to an RFI Because of Potential FOIA 

Exposure 

The sample RFI letter provided in Manual Exhibit 14 specifically requests that the 

licensee refrain from providing personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards 

information in an RFI response. Manual Exhibit 14 also indicates that if the provision 

of such information is necessary in order to provide an acceptable RFI response, the 

licensee should also provide a bracketed copy of the response identifying the 

information the licensee believes NRC should withhold from public disclosure. In 

addition to applying this RFI letter guidance, a licensee will occasionally inform NRC 

of its intent to withhold information requested by an RFI because of the potential that 

the NRC could subsequently be requested to release the information in response to 

a FOIA request. This occurs more frequently when sensitive information is involved 

(such as when an RFI requests information related to ECP evaluations), but could 

occur in any circumstance. NRC will assess such instances on a case-by-case basis 

to determine whether it is necessary to obtain and retain the documentation in NRC 

possession, or if NRC actions related to the allegation can be accomplished by other 

means, such as by dispatching NRC staff to review the documentation at a licensee 

facility. If the NRC believes it is necessary in such instances to obtain and retain the 

documentation, an initial step would be to submit an additional request that the 

information be provided by the licensee. Such a request could be accomplished via 

a telephone call between NRC and licensee management and/or by a follow-up RFI 

letter to the licensee. If the licensee persists in refusing to provide the information, 

and NRC continues to believe that the provision of the information is necessary, OI 

should be consulted regarding the possible issuance of a document subpoena. The 

discussion above also applies to other allegation processing matters involving 

information requested from the licensee, such as when OI requests specific 

documentation from the licensee in support of an investigation. 

5.6.d.7(d) Licensee Request for Extension of RFI Response Time 

For certain matters involving an allegation-related RFI to the licensee, a licensee 

may request more time to provide an appropriate response to the concerns than the 

requested response time frame indicated in the RFI letter. On these occasions, a 

licensee representative contacts an NRC employee cognizant of the allegation 

(usually the OAC or the branch chief responsible for oversight of the facility that is 

the subject of the allegation) to request an extension of time. The authority to grant 

such time extensions will be as delegated by regional or headquarters office 

management. As an example, a regional or headquarters office may establish that 

for short extension requests (up to 2 weeks), it is acceptable for the OAC to grant the 

extension request, but that for extension requests of longer duration (several weeks 

or months) the OAC should engage the responsible branch chief in responding to the 

licensee. In any event, staff should consider the reason for the licensee’s extension 

request and the issue of allegation response timeliness in determining whether to 

grant an extension of time to the licensee. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

171

5.6.d.8 Staff Review of Licensee Response to an RFI 

5.6.d.8(a) General Guidance Regarding NRC Review of a Licensee RFI 

Response 

The NRC has historically conducted separate reviews and reached independent 

conclusions regarding allegation concerns for which information has been requested 

from a licensee via an RFI. Prior to 2009, guidance to NRC staff for performing this 

review was unstructured and the amount of detail provided by the staff in allegation 

closure documentation regarding its review and conclusions related to allegation 

concerns involving an RFI response was varied. In late-2008, a “Checklist for NRC 

Staff Review of Licensee Response to an Allegation Request for Information” 

(Manual Exhibit 15) was developed as a reference guide for NRC staff to use, if 

desired, in performing its review of the licensee’s response to an RFI. 

The technical staff will review the licensee’s response to an RFI for adequacy. The 

staff's review should include some alternate verification of aspects of the information 

provided. Acceptable verification methods include, but are not limited to: 

 Verifying the existence and applicability of technical references, procedures,

corrective action documentation, or calculations noted in the licensee's response,

 Reviewing recent inspection results in the functional area related to the

allegation,

 Asking follow-up questions on the material provided by the licensee, or

 Conducting an independent inspection or technical review.

If the licensee does not conduct a thorough review, it may be necessary for NRC to 

request the licensee to perform a supplemental review or for NRC to independently 

inspect or investigate the allegation concern(s). NRC staff conclusions with regard to 

the licensee’s response and any independent verification, inspection, or investigative 

efforts should be documented for inclusion in allegation closure documentation. (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.J.4(d)(vi), Bullets 1, 2, 3, and 5) 

5.6.d.8(b) Checklist for NRC Staff Review of Licensee Response to an 

RFI 

The “Checklist for NRC Staff Review of Licensee Response to an Allegation Request 

for Information” (Manual Exhibit 15) outlines areas that may be assessed by the staff 

and includes a number of questions to assist the staff reviewer in assessing the 

adequacy of the RFI response. The checklist asks the NRC reviewer to document 

the agency’s assessment of the following aspects of the licensee’s response to the 

RFI: 

- evaluator independence 

- evaluator competence 

- depth and scope of evaluation 

- effectiveness of corrective actions 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

172

- potential compliance issues identified5

- independent review by NRC 

- overall conclusion 

If the licensee’s response contained information indicative of an apparent violation, 

but the licensee’s response does not recognize the apparent violation, the staff 

should consider the following: 

- If the staff identifies a potential violation through review of a licensee’s response 

to an allegation-related RFI, the potential violation is to be evaluated in 

accordance with the Reactor Oversight Program Significance Determination 

Process and/or traditional NRC enforcement and, after notifying the licensee of 

the violation, the results of that evaluation will be described in the closure 

documentation to the alleger, along with the details of any corrective actions 

taken or initiated by the licensee. 

- Licensees are to be informed of the violation before the alleger is informed either 

verbally and/or via closure documentation. If the violation is one that is to be 

documented in a future NRC inspection report, the licensee is to be informed 

verbally by NRC before closure documentation is sent to the alleger that a 

violation was identified and will be documented in a future inspection report. If 

the staff identifies a minor violation in a reactor licensee RFI response, the 

licensee is to be informed verbally that a minor violation was identified and that, 

for appropriate reasons, it will not be documented in an inspection report. The 

closure letter to the alleger will inform the alleger that a minor violation was 

identified, and that the licensee was informed about the minor violation, but that 

because the violation is minor, it will not be documented in an inspection report. 

5.6.d.8(c) Determining the Adequacy of the Licensee’s RFI Response 

In addition to reviewing the licensee’s RFI response for adequacy, Manual Section 

5.6.d.8(a) and Manual Exhibit 15 indicate that the staff’s review should include some 

alternate verification of aspects of the information provided, such as by: 

 posing additional questions to the licensee (This should be coordinated with the

OAC and the branch chief responsible for evaluation of the allegation.)

 performing or coordinating a brief independent inspection activity to verify a

condition indicated in the response (This should be coordinated with the OAC

and the branch chief responsible for evaluation of the allegation. If such

additional inspection activity was not previously discussed with the ARB, involve

the OAC and responsible branch chief in a discussion to determine if the

proposed activity should be presented to the ARB.)

5 While a licensee may recognize a potential violation of NRC requirements during its review of an allegation-related 

RFI, NRC makes final decisions regarding enforcement. If a potential violation of NRC requirements is identified by 

the licensee in its response to an RFI, the violation will be dispositioned in accordance with the guidance contained in 

the NRC Enforcement Manual and NRC Inspection Manual Chapters describing documentation of enforcement 

action.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

173

 reviewing the results of recently conducted NRC inspections in the functional

area related to the allegation concerns

 verifying the existence and applicability of technical references noted in the

response

 verifying the existence and applicability of procedures referenced in the response

 verifying the existence, content, and status of corrective action program

documentation referenced in the response

 checking calculations noted in the response

 comparing the licensee’s feedback to similar circumstances at other facilities on

the basis of the staff reviewer’s knowledge and experience

The reviewer will inform the responsible branch chief and the OAC of the results of 

the evaluation. If the licensee’s RFI response is determined to be acceptable and, 

combined with any additional relevant information, provides the basis for closure, 

responsible NRC staff will proceed with the development of closure documentation 

for the allegation concern. 

If, after review of the licensee’s RFI response, additional information is needed and it 

is determined that a substantively different evaluation plan than previously approved 

by the ARB is needed to obtain necessary information, the ARB should be 

reconvened to discuss the proposed alternate action. Such alternate action may 

include: 

 Preparing a supplemental RFI to be submitted to the licensee, highlighting areas

that may not have been adequately responded to in the licensee’s initial

response;

 Conducting an independent NRC inspection;

 Opening a separate allegation to initiate an OI investigation for an issue involving

potential wrongdoing;

 Initiating an OI assist to obtain additional or clarifying information.

If the staff can address clarifications to the licensee’s response to an RFI by means 

of a brief conversation with the licensee, an ARB would not normally need to be 

reconvened. 

If it is determined that the licensee’s response or a portion of the licensee’s response 

is inadequate, inaccurate, or otherwise unacceptable, the staff should inform the 

licensee of the inadequacy of its response to the RFI (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.J.4(d)(vi), Bullet 4). The staff may proceed to closure if other information is

available that supports closure of the concern; however, the licensee should still be 

informed of the inadequacy of its response to the RFI. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

174

Staff actions taken to address an inadequate licensee response to an RFI should be 

documented in the allegation file and in AMS. An AMS action entry entitled 

“Inadequate Licensee RFI Response” has been included in the AMS database for 

this purpose. The AMS description field for this action should indicate the 

inadequacy and specific additional actions taken by the staff. This will allow for a 

more informative data search regarding the adequacy of licensees’ responses to 

prior RFIs when evaluating the appropriateness of using an RFI for future 

allegations. 

5.6.d.8(c)(1) Determining When to Record a Licensee RFI Response 

as Inadequate in AMS 

Occasionally, NRC will be prompted to take additional allegation follow-up action 

because of a deficiency in a licensee’s RFI response. If only minor additional 

effort is required (e.g., a request for clarification regarding information in the RFI 

response or asking the licensee a simple additional question), more than likely, 

the licensee’s RFI response would not be viewed as inadequate. Also, if the 

reason for a deficient licensee RFI response was because NRC’s RFI letter to 

the licensee was unclear or confusing, the OAC should not record an 

“Inadequate Licensee RFI Response” action in AMS. 

If significant additional effort by NRC is required because of a deficient licensee 

RFI response, responsible staff and the OAC should consider whether the 

licensee’s response should be deemed “inadequate,” prompting the recording of 

an “Inadequate Licensee RFI Response” action in AMS. The following are some 

examples of issues related to a licensee’s RFI response that, more than likely, 

would cause the RFI response to be determined “inadequate:”

 the RFI response is so lacking in detail that it prompts NRC to issue another

RFI letter or to initiate an NRC inspection

 the RFI response does not provide a response to one or more of the

concerns provided to the licensee in the RFI letter

 the RFI response is not responsive to specific questions asked in the RFI

letter to the licensee

 the RFI response describes a condition that constitutes a violation of

regulatory requirements, but the licensee does not recognize the inadequacy

and/or describe corrective actions

 the RFI response focuses on defending the licensee’s actions rather than

being responsive to a perceived problem (as an example, when an RFI

response to a perceived chilled effect matter focuses on describing why the

licensee’s actions should not have been perceived as chilling, rather than on

determining whether the occurrence created a chilled work environment and

describing what actions the licensee took to understand the situation and

provide feedback to the workforce)

 the RFI response provides information that appears to be materially false

and/or intentionally misleading in regard to matters under NRC purview
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

175

If an “Inadequate Licensee RFI Response” action is recorded in AMS, the Action 

office will include discussion in the action description text field as to why the 

licensee’s RFI response was determined to be inadequate. A non-descript 

statement such as... “The ARB determined that the licensee’s response was 

inadequate”... is not sufficient.

5.6.d.8(c)(2) Potential Actions in Response to History of Inadequate RFI 

Responses 

If, after discussion with the responsible Branch Chief and the OAC, it becomes 

apparent that there has been a recent history of inadequate RFI responses from 

a particular site or facility, the matter should be scheduled for discussion at an 

ARB meeting. [The time period for considering a history of inadequate RFI 

responses will vary based on the volume of allegations received at a particular 

facility and events/ongoing issues at the facility, but in general, RFI responses in 

the prior 2 years would be considered as part of the review prior to the ARB 

discussion.] The ARB will discuss the nature of the recent inadequate RFI 

responses, the time frame within which the inadequate RFI responses have been 

received, what follow-up action has been/will be taken by the NRC, and how the 

review of the history of inadequate responses will be documented in the ARB 

minutes and in AMS. The ARB should consider an appropriate means of 

notifying licensee senior management about the inadequacies in their RFI 

responses (e.g., a telephone call to or meeting with licensee senior 

management) and obtaining information from the licensee regarding planned 

corrective actions to address the history of inadequate RFI responses. If the 

ARB determines that a call to or meeting with licensee senior management is 

necessary, and if the involved licensee operates a fleet of plants crossing NRC 

regional boundaries, the OAC will notify the OAC(s) in the other affected regional 

office(s), as appropriate. 

In rare circumstances, the ARB may choose to stop issuing RFIs to the licensee 

on a temporary basis until the action office concludes that the licensee has taken 

appropriate actions to improve the quality of subsequent RFI responses. This 

option should only be considered if the ARB concludes that, in the near term, the 

licensee is unlikely to provide an adequate response to an RFI. 

5.6.d.8(c)(3) History of Inadequate RFI Responses from a Company 

Operating a Reactor Fleet 

Regional OACs should be mindful that inadequate RFI responses from a reactor 

fleet operator could be indicative of a generic problem that could affect other 

regional OACs who interface with the same fleet operator. If there is indication 

that a history of inadequate RFI responses is coming from a company that 

operates a reactor fleet, additional efforts should be considered to determine 

whether the problem is plant-specific or applicable to some or all of the facilities 

in the reactor fleet. This additional information may be gathered anecdotally via 

individual or counterpart discussions with the NRC regional allegation 

coordinators, or through querying the AMS database for information related to 

inadequate RFI responses involving the reactor fleet operator. The AAA should 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

176

be engaged whenever such questions arise for help in coordinating efforts to 

gather information related to the actions of the fleet operator. 

5.6.e Referral of Concerns About Agreement State Licensees 

5.6.e.1 Requirement to Refer a Concern Related to an Agreement State 

Licensee 

In accordance with 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. If, after the Agreement State program is 

described to an individual who contacts NRC with concerns about an Agreement State 

licensee, the concerned individual agrees to contact and be contacted directly by the 

Agreement State, the concerns are provided to the appropriate RSAO for referral to the 

Agreement State and are not processed as allegations. 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. (8.8 Handbook, Sections II.J.4(e)(i), II.J.4(e)(ii), and 

II.J.4(e)(iii))

5.6.e.2 Determining Whether to Process a Concern Related to an 

Agreement State Licensee as an Allegation 

Determining whether an Agreement State referral is to be tracked as an allegation 

depends upon the concerned individual’s willingness to have his/her identity provided to 

the Agreement State, whether both Agreement State Licensee concerns and Agreement 

State performance or wrongdoing concerns are raised, and whether additional concerns 

are raised that involve other agencies or jurisdictions (see Manual Section 3.2.a for 

detailed guidance regarding the processing of Agreement State-related concerns). 

5.6.e.3 Concerns Involving an Agreement State Licensee That Are Under 

Jurisdiction of Another Federal Agency 

A concern about an Agreement State licensee that falls within the purview of another 

Federal agency will be referred to the appropriate Federal Agency in addition to the 

affected Agreement State. If the concerned individual objects to the release of his/her 

identity to the Agreement State and/or the other Federal Agency, such a referral should 

be made in a manner that protects the identity of the concerned individual, including 

rewriting the concern. The concerned individual should be informed that the matter is not 

within NRC jurisdiction and that he/she may contact the Agreement State and/or the 

other Federal Agency directly if feedback is desired. If the other Federal Agency 

requests the identity of the concerned individual, follow the guidance in Manual Section 

4.0 that discusses identity protection for allegers, including allegers with confidential 

source status. The letter to the Federal Agency will also provide the name of a contact 

person in the Agreement State organization. Such matters are not considered 

allegations or entered into the AMS database. 

5.6.e.4 Concerns Involving Both an NRC License and a State License 

An allegation/concern may be received wherein the facility-in-question possesses both a 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

177

State license and an NRC license (e.g., a State possession license and an NRC 

distribution licensee for certain radioactive material). Before the allegation/concern is 

referred, all reasonable efforts should be made to determine the jurisdiction under which 

the activities occurred. If the jurisdictional lines are unclear, the State should be 

promptly notified of the allegation/concern in an effort to clarify jurisdiction as the State 

may have information that may assist in determining the jurisdiction of the 

allegation/concern. If, after consultation with the State, jurisdictional lines remain 

unresolved, the State and NRC should confer to agree upon the agency taking the lead 

in addressing the allegation/concern. If either agency determines in the course of 

reviewing the allegation/concern that some aspects of the allegation/concern are within 

the other agency’s jurisdiction, that agency would be so informed. Any correspondence 

with or document transmitting the allegation/concern to the State should request that 

NRC be notified if the State identifies any improper activities under NRC’s jurisdiction. 

5.6.f Referral of Industrial Safety Concerns to OSHA and/or the Licensee 

5.6.f.1 Processing Industrial Safety Concerns

Industrial safety concerns submitted to NRC within the purview of OSHA are to be 

handled in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (MC) 1007, "Interfacing 

Activities Between Regional Offices of NRC and OSHA," and applicable regional or 

headquarters office procedures (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(f)). Industrial safety 

concerns are not considered NRC allegations and need not be entered into the AMS 

database. The responsible staff may track follow-up regarding an industrial safety 

concern in an action item tracking system within the action office as deemed 

appropriate. If an industrial safety concern is submitted by an alleger along with 

allegation concerns, responsible staff may also choose, from an administrative 

standpoint, to enter the industrial safety concern into AMS as an “OSHA” concern so that 

tracking and documentation efforts for both the OSHA issue and the NRC allegation 

concerns are coordinated. 

5.6.f.2 Identity Protection Considerations Related to OSHA Referrals 

If it is determined that the industrial safety concern should be referred to the licensee 

and/or OSHA, the concern should be referred to the licensee in a manner that protects 

the identity of the concerned individual, including rewriting the concerns. If the 

concerned individual objects to the release of his/her identity to OSHA, the alleger is to 

be informed of the NRC’s limitations on the protection of his or her identity, that the 

issues are not within NRC's jurisdiction, and that he/she may contact OSHA directly if 

feedback is desired. Contact information for OSHA should be provided to enable the 

concerned individual to contact OSHA in the future. NRC should not act as an 

intermediary for the evaluation of industrial safety issues. If OSHA requests the name of 

the concerned individual from NRC, follow the guidance in Manual Section 4.0 that 

discusses identity protection for allegers, including allegers with confidential source 

status. 

5.6.f.3 NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1007

It is noted that Manual Chapter 1007 has sufficient flexibility to allow staff to make an 

informed decision as to whether it is appropriate to refer an industrial safety issue to the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

178

licensee and/or to OSHA over the objections of the alleger. Specifically, stipulations in 

Manual Chapter 1007 prompting the notification of the licensee and/or OSHA call for the 

stated concern to be an existing industrial safety hazard with indication that the hazard is 

not being addressed by the licensee. If these criteria do not apply, responsible staff 

have the prerogative to refrain from informing the licensee about the issue. Also, 

Manual Chapter 1007, Section 04.04 does not require notification of OSHA in all 

situations, but rather indicates that the Regional OSHA Liaison Officer “determines 

whether events and conditions having industrial safety significance at NRC-regulated 

facilities are to be reported to the appropriate OSHA Area and/or Regional Office.” If an 

alleged industrial safety hazard no longer exists, notification of OSHA may not be 

necessary, as OSHA's primary focus is on existing industrial safety hazards, and 

particularly on matters that represent imminent danger to workers. 

5.6.g Referral of Concerns to Government Agencies and Military Organizations 

 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).] (8.8

Handbook, Section II.J.4(g)(i))

 Notification of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the determination

of the amount of information to be provided to them are the responsibility of the

appropriate OI field office and the Director of OI. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(g)(ii))

 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.

(8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(g)(iii))

 Identity protection of the concerned individual should be considered in staff referrals of

such matters in accordance with the identity protection guidance in Manual Section 4.0.

(8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.4(g)(iv))

The concerned individual’s identity can be provided to these organizations if the concerned 

individual agrees and such agreement is documented. If the concerned individual objects to 

the release of his/her identity to these organizations, the concerned individual is to be 

informed of the NRC’s limitations on the protection of his/her identity, that the issues are not 

within NRC's jurisdiction, and that he/she may contact the organization directly if feedback is 

desired. Referrals should be made in a manner that protects the identity of the alleger, 

including rewriting the concern. Contact information should be provided to enable the 

concerned individual to contact the organization in the future. NRC should not act as an 

intermediary for the evaluation of these matters. If the organization requests the name of 

the concerned individual from NRC, follow the guidance in Section 4.0 of the Manual that 

discusses identity protection for allegers, including allegers with confidential source status. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

179

5.6.h Referrals of Offsite Emergency Preparedness Matters Related to NRC 

Licensed Facilities to FEMA 

Allegations involving offsite emergency preparedness matters related to NRC licensed 

facilities are to be assigned to the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR). 

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.J.4(h)) While NSIR is the action office for such matters, at this time, the OAC in the Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) handles allegation program administrative matters 

related to NSIR allegations (AMS tracking, scheduling of ARBs, etc.). 

5.6.i Referrals to OIG 

Occasionally, a submitted allegation may also include one or more assertions related to 

misconduct on the part the performance of NRC staff or contractors and/or mismanagement 

of agency programs or operations. 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 entered into the AMS. Any records pertinent to matters involving OIG should be 

excluded from the allegation file or appropriately redacted and forwarded to the applicable 

regional administrator or headquarters office director for transfer to OIG, as appropriate. 

Such matters should not be discussed during an ARB meeting. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.J.4(i)) When responding to alleger inquiries about concerns referred to OIG, the alleger is

to be informed that the concern has been given to OIG and that OIG may be contacted 

directly for further details via the OIG Hotline (1-800-233-3497). See Manual Section 3.2.u.7 

for documentation handling considerations with regard to the referral of concerns to OIG. 

5.6.j Referrals of Concerns About OIG 

If an individual wishes to file a concern against an NRC OIG employee other than senior 

management, the alleger should be directed to contact the OIG Hotline (1-800-233-3497). If 

an individual wishes to file a concern against NRC OIG senior management or any other 

agency’s OIG concerning the OIG’s handling of his/her concern, the concerned individual 

should be provided the following contact information: 

Integrity Committee 

Councils of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) 

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Room 3973 

Washington, DC 20535-0001

Phone: (202) 324-3768

E-mail: IC_Complaints@ic.fbi.gov
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

180

5.7 Evaluation of Wrongdoing Concerns 

5.7.a Providing an Allegation Concern to OI for Initiation of an Investigation 

5.7.a.1 Informing OI of Matters Involving Potential Wrongdoing 

If potential wrongdoing is alleged or suspected or if discrimination has been alleged, OI 

must be informed, as 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.5(a)) 

5.7.a.2 Handling Allegations Involving Both Wrongdoing and an Overriding 

Safety Issue 

If an allegation includes an overriding safety issue 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 Field Office Director (now 

Special Agent in Charge (SAIC)) or the Director of 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 investigation, potential escalated enforcement, or DOJ prosecution, in 

determining whether to perform the technical review or to release the information. (8.8 

Handbook, Section II.J.5(b)) [Note: OI tracks such information releases in the OI 

investigation file. If the action office decides, after consultation with OI, to delay 

informing a licensee about an issue, this decision and the basis on which the delay is 

founded, consistent with public health, safety, or security, should be documented by the 

action office and the decision reexamined every 3 months to ensure its continuing 

validity.] 

5.7.a.3 OI Investigation of Discrimination Concerns 

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 via 

Early ADR, or any other mediation process, the ARB will recommend that OI initiate an 

investigation. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.5(c)). 

5.7.a.4 Informing the Department of Justice of Substantiated Wrongdoing 

If an allegation related to a wrongdoing or alleged discrimination matter is substantiated, 

OI will inform the Department of Justice (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 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

181

concurrence of the Director of OI will be obtained before disclosing the information. If 

DOJ accepts the issue, generally any ongoing NRC actions at that point in terms of 

further investigation, enforcement considerations, and allegation closure are held in 

abeyance pending completion of the DOJ review. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.J.5(d)) 

5.7.a.5 Initiating, Prioritizing, and Terminating OI Investigations 

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section V)) 

5.7.a.5(a) Wrongdoing Definition and Examples 

Wrongdoing consists of a willful violation of regulatory requirements through 

deliberate action or a violation resulting from careless disregard of regulatory 

requirements (examples: deliberate violation of a safety-related procedure, providing 

false or inaccurate information in an effort to influence an NRC decision related to 

the license, portraying fraudulent or counterfeit parts sold to the nuclear industry as 

qualified to perform safety-related functions). 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.A.1) 

5.7.a.5(b) Notification of OI 

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. Oral/telephone 

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 Management Directive 10.160, "Open Door Policy"). (8.8 Handbook, Section 

V.A.2)

5.7.a.5(c) Office Director Requests for OI Investigation 

In addition to the discussion in Manual Sections 5.7.a.5(a) and 5.7.a.5(b) 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 of the Office of 

Enforcement (OE) also retain the ability to request OI to conduct an investigation. 

(8.8 Handbook, V.A.3)

5.7.a.5(d) Providing Information to OI and Scheduling the ARB 

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 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

182

meetings are normally used to coordinate with OI on follow-up actions related to 

wrongdoing issues. An OI representative must be invited to any ARB meeting that is 

scheduled to discuss alleged wrongdoing. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.B.1) 

5.7.a.5(e) Providing Discrimination Concern Detail to OI 

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 Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(Early ADR) as a means of obtaining issue resolution (see Manual Section 5.2.f). 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 and/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/prospective employer, the ARB will recommend that OI initiate an 

investigation. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.B.3) 

5.7.a.5(f) Allegation Process Activity Related to Alleged 

Wrongdoing or Discrimination Matters 

5.7.a.5(f)(1) ARB Actions and Provision of Draft 

Notice of Violation 

Potential wrongdoing or alleged discrimination matters, regardless of their origin, 

should be coordinated with the OAC for entry into and tracking via 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. Additionally, 

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 by the ARB, using the guidance set forth in Manual 

Section 5.7.a.5(i). 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. (8.8 

Handbook, Section V.B.4) Regional Counsel (for regional allegations) and OGC 

(for headquarters office allegations) should confirm that the draft NOV is valid to 

assure that OI resources are not applied inappropriately (i.e., wrongdoing cannot 

be substantiated if an NRC regulation has not been violated). While important to 

all allegation matters involving potential wrongdoing, the determination of a valid 

draft NOV is particularly important in instances where NRC management has 

requested that an OI investigation be opened or when OI self-initiates and 

investigation since, in these instances, a draft NOV is not initially provided. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

183

5.7.a.5(f)(2) Disposition of Underlying Technical 

Issues 

Responsible technical staff at the initial ARB and any subsequent ARBs related 

to the potential wrongdoing or alleged discrimination matter should ensure that 

the underlying technical issues are discussed. If an underlying technical issue 

remains unresolved, the ARB should determine and assign appropriate follow-up 

action to the technical staff. If the ARB can reach a conclusion that the 

underlying technical issue no longer exists or has been satisfactorily resolved by 

the licensee, then the ARB should document that fact and note that only the 

wrongdoing or discrimination matter remains open. 

5.7.a.5(g) Determining Whether OI Investigation is Warranted in 

Response to Allegations of Wrongdoing 

Due to the potential impact on safety, all technical matters involving potential 

wrongdoing are evaluated on a priority basis. Once received by the OAC, an 

allegation of wrongdoing is brought to the attention of appropriate OI staff (i.e., OI 

headquarters staff or regional SAIC), OGC or Regional Counsel, and responsible 

action office staff. These individuals initially discuss the concern(s) to evaluate the 

safety significance and to determine if immediate action is needed. An adhoc/emergency ARB is normally scheduled if it is determined that immediate action 

is needed. 

In determining whether an investigation is warranted, a specific indication of 

wrongdoing should be indicated in the facts related to the assertion of wrongdoing. 

To determine whether a specific indication of wrongdoing exists, the circumstances 

surrounding the activities that gave rise to the allegation must be considered, and the 

allegation, if proven true, must constitute a violation of regulatory requirements. In 

reviewing and evaluating the circumstances related to the wrongdoing concern, 

responsible staff should obtain as much information as possible without harming any 

evidence that OI may explore when performing an investigation. Normally, in order to 

gather sufficient information to enable the ARB to make an informed decision 

regarding whether OI should be requested to initiate an investigation, responsible 

staff should consider the following steps in advance of the ARB, or include one of the 

following proposals in the initial ARB evaluation plan: 

 For an alleger-identified allegation with indications of potential wrongdoing, the

plan for evaluating the allegation is prepared before any information is obtained

from the licensee. If the statements provided by the alleger, as informed by NRC

staff with knowledge of the area in question, clearly represent a specific

indication of potential wrongdoing, responsible staff may recommend at the initial

ARB that an investigation be initiated by OI. If it is unclear that a specific

indication of potential wrongdoing has been articulated, as approved by the initial

ARB, responsible staff should consider re-contacting the alleger and/or

performing an inspection in an attempt to gather more information. The ARB can

also request assistance from OI (i.e., an OI Assist to Staff), to support the staff in

obtaining additional information. The ARB may also consider requesting

information from the licensee via an RFI regarding the circumstances

surrounding the violation. To avoid the possibility of interference with any

subsequent OI investigation, any RFI and/or inspection should not directly
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

184

request whether the individuals alleged to have been involved in the matter knew 

that their actions were contrary to regulatory requirements, or otherwise indicate 

that an NRC investigation may be under consideration. The option of issuing an 

RFI to the licensee should not typically be considered before an attempt is made 

to gather more information directly from the alleger or via inspection activity or via 

an OI Assist to Staff. The additional information gathered through one or more of 

these efforts will enable the ARB to reach an independent determination of 

whether a specific indication of wrongdoing exists. 

 For a licensee-identified indication of potential wrongdoing, responsible staff

should obtain and review, when available, a copy of the licensee’s investigation

of the matter. Obtaining the licensee’s investigation and a summary of actions

taken by the licensee as a result will enable the ARB to better determine whether

a violation of NRC requirements may have occurred, whether the violation may

have been willful, and if so, what the priority of any subsequent OI investigation

should be. OI should be engaged in the review of the licensee’s investigation

documentation, and may open an OI Assist to Staff to record its review efforts.

Notwithstanding the above, if at any time prior to the completion of the licensee’s 

internal investigation, responsible NRC staff find that preliminary information 

provided by the licensee articulates specific indication of potential wrongdoing or 

provides sufficient evidence for NRC to conclude that wrongdoing/discrimination 

may have occurred, the matter should be entered into the allegation process for 

ARB consideration and discussion with OI regarding the possible initiation of an 

OI investigation. It is also noted that OI always retains the prerogative to initiate 

an investigation before the licensee’s investigation is completed, and in rare 

circumstances, may request the licensee to terminate its investigation in 

deference to the OI review. 

 For an NRC-identified indication of potential wrongdoing, responsible staff should

compile sufficient information about the circumstances surrounding the

underlying technical matter to determine the regulation that was potentially

violated and whether a specific indication of wrongdoing exists. If the information

provided by the NRC staff member initiating the concern, along with information

compiled by responsible staff about related circumstances clearly represents a

specific indication of potential wrongdoing, responsible staff may recommend at

the initial ARB that an investigation be initiated by OI. If it is unclear that a

specific indication of potential wrongdoing has been articulated, as approved by

the initial ARB, responsible staff should consider performing an inspection in an

attempt to gather more information. The ARB can also request assistance from

OI (i.e., an OI Assist to Staff), to support the staff in obtaining additional

information. The ARB may also consider issuing an RFI to the licensee

regarding the circumstances surrounding the violation. To avoid the possibility of

interference with any subsequent OI investigation, any RFI and/or inspection

should not directly request whether the individuals alleged to have been involved

in the matter knew that their actions were contrary to regulatory requirements, or

otherwise indicate that an NRC investigation may be under consideration. The

option of issuing an RFI to the licensee should not typically be considered before

an attempt is made to gather more information via inspection activity or via an OI

Assist to Staff. The additional information gathered through one or more of these
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

185

efforts will enable the ARB to reach an independent determination of whether a 

specific indication of wrongdoing exists. 

If an OI Assist to Staff is opened to support staff efforts in obtaining additional 

information about a potential wrongdoing matter, an allegation number should be 

assigned so that an allegation file number exists to which the OI Assist to Staff effort 

may be attributed. For an NRC-staff identified concern involving potential 

wrongdoing, if the results of the OI Assist to Staff do not result in the opening of a full 

OI investigation, the allegation Activity in AMS will be characterized as a “NonAllegation.”

Once sufficient information regarding the circumstances surrounding an allegation of 

potential wrongdoing has been obtained to enable the ARB to evaluate whether the 

matter should be investigated, an ARB should be scheduled to document whether OI 

will be requested to initiate an investigation. The action recommended to the ARB 

should include the following: 

 A summary of the concern;

 A draft NOV for the technical issue alleged to involve wrongdoing, preferably with

an associated Severity Level;

 An explanation of the circumstances and rationale for concluding that a specific

indication of wrongdoing is or is not presented;

 If known, a summary of the licensee’s evaluation of the issue and any corrective

actions taken or planned;

 The likely enforcement outcome if the concern is substantiated;

 If it is to be recommended that OI initiate an investigation, a clear indication of

those individuals who would be considered the subjects of the investigation.

Prior to or at the ARB, the following factors may be considered, along with any other 

pertinent information, in discussing/affirming whether a specific indication of 

wrongdoing exists warranting investigation by OI: 

o Whether the individual whose actions gave rise to the alleged violation was very

recently and specifically trained, briefed, or instructed in how to correctly perform

the activity, or whether there were clear postings, signs, or procedures in use that

tend to indicate the individual may have known at the time of the alleged violation

that his/her conduct did not conform to regulatory requirements;

Example: A decontamination technician attends a morning briefing of the day’s

work activities where he is specifically instructed to clean vessel-head tensioning

nuts inside a specially-designed bucket using a wire brush, but later the same

day, instead cleans them on a table using abrasive pads.

o Whether the individual was very experienced in performing the specific activity

that gave rise to the alleged violation, or whether the individual was newlyassigned or had lesser experience performing the activity;
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

186

o Whether the individual had recently performed the same activity that is the

subject of the alleged violation correctly and in compliance with regulatory

requirements;

Example: A security officer assigned to perform a fire watch in a certain room 

initially decides not to enter the room because the entrance is restricted as a 

locked, high-radiation area and the officer does not have an appropriate radiation 

work permit, but as the deadline for completing the fire watch draws near, the 

officer enters the room through another entrance that is also marked as restricted 

without first obtaining the proper authorization. 

o Whether statements obtained from those involved in the activity that gave rise to

the alleged violation are materially inconsistent regarding what happened, when

it happened, why it happened, who was involved, etc.; or offer an explanation of

events that is not consistent with the physical circumstances and therefore

implausible;

Example: A worker indicates in a log book that a required check or surveillance 

of a piece of equipment was performed, but at the time of the log book entry, the 

equipment was not onsite or in the location recorded as having been checked. 

o Whether there was any acknowledgement or admission by an individual that

suggests he/she knew at the time of the alleged violation that his/her conduct did

not conform to regulatory requirements.

5.7.a.5(h) Periodic Status Meetings with OI to Discuss Investigation 

Priorities 

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 of OE should be consulted, as appropriate, in applying the priority guidance 

with respect to questions on potential severity levels and enforcement actions. (8.8 

Handbook, Section V.B.4) 

5.7.a.5(i) OI Prioritization Guidance 

Individuals responsible for evaluating an allegation should come to the ARB meeting 

prepared to discuss the investigative priority of the allegation concern and the 

rationale for the priority of the issue, assuming that the allegation concern is true. 

Guidance for assigning an investigation priority of high, normal or low are provided 

below. Examples are provided to assist in applying the priority guidance. Judgment 

must still be exercised in each case to ensure that the appropriate priority is 

established. The priority of an investigation being conducted by OI may be adjusted 

as appropriate by the affected regional administrator or program office director at 

periodic meetings held with OI to discuss investigation priority and status. The 

Director of OE should be consulted, as appropriate, in applying the priority guidance 

with respect to questions on potential severity levels and enforcement actions. A 

tabular version of the OI prioritization guidance is provided in Manual Exhibit 16. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

187

5.7.a.5(i)(1) High Priority 

The high-priority matter, if it is proven, is of very significant regulatory concern. 

The potential consequences for safety, given the position of the person(s) 

involved, any apparent lack of integrity of that person, and the safety significance 

of the underlying matter, if the violation should be found willful, are high and likely 

would result in prompt regulatory action by NRC. The person(s) involved in the 

willful violation very likely would be removed from licensed activities for a 

substantial period of time. Normally, it would be expected that the violation, 

without considering the issue of intent, would not likely be categorized at less 

than a Severity Level III or, if it would be categorized at less than a Level III, 

would involve management at the level of a mid-level manager or above (this 

means if willfulness is proven, it likely will be at least a Severity Level III 

violation). 

Examples of circumstances prompting a high-priority investigation include the 

following: 

• A licensee or contractor manager (second-line supervisor or above), reactor

operator, or radiation safety officer (RSO) directing, performing, or condoning

(meaning the individual is aware of the apparent willfulness of the violation

and does not act to report or stop it) any deliberate violation, including

providing false information to the NRC or creating false licensee records, that

may raise an integrity issue calling into question NRC's reasonable

assurance.

• Any individual directing, performing, or condoning a deliberate violation in

which, without consideration of intent, the underlying violation is at least of

significant regulatory concern and would be categorized at Severity Level I, II,

or III.

• Any individual knowingly providing incomplete and inaccurate information to

NRC or a licensee with the purpose of influencing a significant regulatory

decision, such as a favorable restart decision, operability decision, issuance

of a license amendment, not proceeding with an escalated enforcement

action, or issuance of a notice of enforcement discretion.

• Any individual deliberately covering up a matter so that a required report was

not made to NRC in which it would have been likely for NRC to have promptly

(within several days) sent inspectors or issued correspondence to the

licensee to follow up on the matter if NRC had known of the information, or in

which the cover-up was to prevent identification of a significant matter during

an NRC inspection.

• Any individual willfully providing inaccurate or incomplete information to NRC,

to a licensee, or creating false records that in fact cause a wrong decision to

be made by either NRC or a licensee (i.e., if accurate or complete information

had been provided, a substantively different decision would have been made

with regard to regulatory or safety significance; the inaccurate information in

fact had an influence).
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

188

• Any individual tampering with vital equipment at a power reactor that

indicates a potential act of sabotage.

• Any individual suspected of a deliberate violation, which would otherwise be

categorized as a normal priority were it not for the need for an immediate

investigation because there are indications that evidence may be lost or

tampered with.

• Allegations of discrimination:

– resulting from the provision of information regarding nuclear safety or

regulatory issues directly to the NRC

– caused by a licensee or a contractor, or a mid-level manager or above

(consistent with the current enforcement policy classification of Severity

Level I or II violations)

– for raising concerns of degraded or nonconforming conditions that if true

would impact the operability of a safety-related structure, system, or

component, or safeguards equipment

– that appear particularly blatant or egregious

• Other matters to which, because of the potential regulatory significance, a

regional administrator or an office director with the concurrence of a Deputy

Executive Director for Operations assigns a high priority.

5.7.a.5(i)(2) Normal Priority 

The normal-priority matter, if it is proven, is of significant regulatory concern. The 

person causing the willful violation may be removed from licensed activities. The 

potential consequence for safety is of concern. Normally it would be expected 

that the violation, without considering the issue of intent, would not likely result in 

a Severity Level I, II, or III violation except a Severity Level III violation excluded 

in the examples of high-priority matters or a matter covered under normal-priority 

as indicated below (this means if willfulness is proven, it will likely be at least a 

Severity Level III violation). 

Examples of circumstances prompting a normal-priority investigation are those 

that do not meet the standards for a high-priority investigation, such as: 

• Any individual directing, performing, or condoning (meaning the individual is

aware of the apparent willfulness of the violation and does not act to report or

stop it) a deliberate violation in which without consideration of intent, the

underlying violation would be categorized at a Severity Level IV or Green

violation, and the violation was either NRC-identified, or involves a supervisor

or a licensed operator, or the licensee has not taken sufficient corrective

action (including sufficient disciplinary action).

• Cases involving discrimination not amounting to a high priority.

• Any individual providing information, knowing it is incomplete and inaccurate,

directly or indirectly to NRC or in records (if it is a relatively isolated matter or

not a significant record) maintained by a licensee or deliberately covering up

a matter not required to be reported to prevent identification during an NRC
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

189

inspection. 

• Licensee officials directing, performing, or condoning violations in careless

disregard of regulatory requirements in which the underlying violation, without

consideration of intent, would not be categorized at a Severity Level I, II, or

III.

• Willful failure to submit a required report to NRC in a matter not considered a

high priority.

• Relatively isolated deliberate failure to file a Form 241, "Report of Proposed

Activities in Non-Agreement States," notwithstanding the examples

considered a high priority.

5.7.a.5(i)(3) Low Priority 

The low-priority matter, if it is proven, is of concern but does not rise to the 

significance of a high or normal priority. The person causing the willful violation 

would not likely be removed from licensed activities. 

Examples of circumstances prompting a low-priority investigation include the 

following: 

• The situation in which, without consideration of intent, the underlying violation

would be characterized as a minor violation or as an SL IV or Green violation

for situations that are licensee-identified, involve only low-level nonsupervisory personnel, and for which the licensee has taken sufficient

corrective action (including significant disciplinary action against the

responsible individual(s)).

• Relatively isolated falsification of a record or falsification of records that are

not significant.

• Violations caused by careless disregard not covered in higher priorities.

• Licensee- or contractor-identified willful violations of limited safety

significance committed by individuals holding relatively low-level positions.

For some circumstances of potential wrongdoing considered to be of low priority, 

the ARB, with OI concurrence, may determine that initiation of an investigation is 

not recommended. Such a determination will be made by the ARB on a case-bycase basis, considering the involved employee’s position within the organization, 

the significance of the safety issue underlying the potential wrongdoing, the 

potential severity level of the infraction without consideration of intent, the quality 

and comprehensiveness of any related licensee investigation, and the 

comprehensiveness of corrective actions taken by the licensee. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

190

5.7.a.5(j) Resolution of Differences 

5.7.a.5(j)(1) OI Investigation Status Report and Estimated 

Completion Date 

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.C.1) 

5.7.a.5(j)(2) Disagreement with Assigned Investigation Priority 

Headquarters offices that are action offices along with OE are responsible to the 

EDO 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/status 

discussion with the regional administrator or his/her designee, the headquarters 

office should contact the regional office promptly to resolve the difference of 

opinion. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.C.2) 

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 of OE will review an 

enforcement-related matter under investigation. The headquarters office director 

will then consult with the Director of OI in an additional effort to reach a 

conclusion with regard to 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, and Compliance Programs (DEDMRT) 

will be consulted for resolution. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.C.3) 

The DEDMRT shall attempt to resolve any remaining differences over the need, 

priority, and estimated completion date for investigations with the Director of OI 

and the director of the responsible headquarters office. If unsuccessful in 

resolving the differences, the DEDMRT shall refer the matter to the EDO for 

resolution. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.C.4)) 

5.7.a.5(k) Initiation of an Investigation by OI 

5.7.a.5(k)(1) What is an Investigation? 

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 commences with certain 

preliminary investigative steps by OI to evaluate the nature and substance of a 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

191

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. 

(8.8 Handbook, Section V.D.1) 

5.7.a.5(k)(2) OI Efforts Prior to Initiation of an Investigation 

Prior to the initial ARB meeting, OI reviews available information and details 

related to the matter of alleged wrongdoing, and may interview the alleger and/or 

responsible NRC staff in an effort to determine whether sufficient specific 

evidence of potential wrongdoing is available to warrant the initiation of an OI 

investigation. OI will discuss its preliminary findings with responsible staff at the 

initial ARB meeting, where a decision will be reached, with input from OI, as to 

whether a full OI investigation is to be initiated. OI will likely proceed with further 

investigation if the following determinations are made: 

• A regional administrator or office director (on his/her own behalf or via the

ARB) believes that the alleged wrongdoing has had or could have an impact

on public health, safety, and security, provided that these matters are within

NRC jurisdiction.

• The OI SAIC determines that a reasonable basis exists to believe that the

matter involves wrongdoing and a full investigation is necessary to determine

possible regulatory action.

• The OI SAIC determines that sufficient information is available to support the

allegation of wrongdoing and to warrant initiation of a full investigation.

5.7.a.5(k)(3) Requirement to Consult the Commission Regarding an 

Investigation into an Individual's Character 

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.D.2)

5.7.a.5(k)(4) OI Self-Initiation 

Additionally, OI may self-initiate investigations or assists as deemed necessary 

by the Director of OI. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.D.3) After an action office is 

notified that OI has self-initiated an investigation, an ARB will be convened. This 

ARB will provide a forum for discussing the specifics of the matter of suspected 

wrongdoing, providing a draft NOV for the regulation that has allegedly been 

intentionally violated, discussing related licensee evaluations and corrective 

actions, if known, and discussing the likely enforcement outcome. If the technical 

staff is unable to construct a draft NOV, the ARB will provide a formal mechanism 

for informing OI of this fact, so that additional OI resources may be preserved. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

192

5.7.a.5(k)(5) OI Assessment of Preliminary Investigation Efforts 

Following preliminary investigative efforts, OI will notify the responsible regional 

or headquarters office of its decision on whether or not to proceed with further 

investigation, normally within 90 calendar days to include the estimated 

completion date. If a matter is to be closed without further investigation, OI will 

so notify the regional or program office, indicate the basis for its decision, and 

follow up with a report of investigation or closure memorandum. 

5.7.a.5(k)(6) Reconsideration of OI Priority 

If it is determined that the need for, or priority of, an investigation has changed 

after a matter has been accepted by OI for investigation, that information is to be 

provided to the responsible OI SAIC or the Director, OI and to the OAC so that 

the priority and/or the need for the investigation may be reconsidered by 

responsible regional or headquarters office staff and OI. This matter may be 

discussed at a periodic meeting held between the affected regional administrator 

or program office director and OI to discuss investigation priority and status, or at 

an ARB meeting. 

5.7.a.5(l) Termination of Investigations 

5.7.a.5(l)(1) Preliminary Investigation Findings Indicating 

No Violation 

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.E.1) [It is 

noted that the staff should normally be able to inform OI, prior to the initiation of 

an investigation, that the matter of potential wrongdoing, even if substantiated, 

would not constitute a violation.] 

5.7.a.5(l)(2) Other Factors Contributing to an OI Decision to 

Terminate an Investigation 

The decision to terminate an OI investigation will be made after a case-by-case 

assessment by the responsible OI Field Office Director (now SAIC) on the basis 

of 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. (8.8 

Handbook, Section V.E.2) 

A case may be closed by OI in certain instances when preliminary investigative 

findings indicate sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to warrant further investigation 

if a determination is made that higher priority cases take precedence. For lowand normal-priority cases, OI may close a case if its projection of resource 

allocations indicates that the investigation could not be initiated within a 

reasonable time, generally 6 months. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

193

5.7.a.6 Resolution of Matters Returned by OI Without Investigation 

5.7.a.6(a) Options for Handling Matters Returned to the Staff by OI 

without Completing an Investigation 

Matters returned to the staff by OI without having completed a full investigation for 

any of the reasons discussed in Manual Section 5.7.a.5(l) above will be handled by 

the staff as part of its established process for resolving inspection findings. Staff 

follow-up may include additional inspections, written requests for information from 

the licensee, meetings between the staff and the licensee, proceeding with 

enforcement action on the basis of 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 in accordance with 

the guidance specified in this Manual. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.F.1) 

5.7.a.6(b) Closing Matters without a Full OI Investigation 

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 

technical issues involved do not warrant the expenditure of additional agency 

resources, assuming enforcement is not warranted. (8.8 Handbook, Section V.F.2) 

These determinations should be documented in a memorandum that should become 

part of the permanent record. If the issue was being handled as an allegation, this 

memorandum should be made part of the allegation file. 

5.8 Periodic Status Letters to Allegers 

5.8.a Status Letter Requirement and Frequency

In instances of unusual delay in evaluating the allegation, the OAC or other designated staff 

should ensure that periodic status letters regarding the NRC’s evaluation of concerns are 

provided to the alleger. 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 

Manual Exhibit 17. 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.K) 

5.8.b Allegation Concerns Closed in a Status Letter 

If some but not all concerns within an allegation are closed, the alleger should normally be 

advised of the results of NRC’s evaluation of those concerns via a status letter. The OAC 

may use his/her discretion in determining when to send the letter, depending on when the 

next correspondence with the alleger is scheduled. For example, if the next scheduled 

status letter is to be issued within 60 days or if it is anticipated that the closure letter will be 

issued within 60 days, it would be acceptable to close the concern(s) within that letter. 

However, if a concern is closed after a recent status letter has been issued, and it is not 

anticipated that remaining open concerns will be closed within the following 4 to 6 months, 

the action office should consider issuing an additional status letter, in the interim, to inform 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

194

the alleger of the closure of the concern. 

5.8.c Guidance for Closing Concerns in a Status Letter 

Guidance for providing closure documentation related to allegation concerns is provided in 

Manual Section 5.9, and should be applied to allegation concerns closed within a status 

letter. If a technical inspection has been performed, it is appropriate to enclose a copy of 

pertinent portions of the related inspection report with the status letter. For the closure of 

security concerns in a status letter, see the guidance for closing security-related concerns in 

Manual Section 5.9.g.4. 

5.8.d Status Letter Marking 

To help prevent the inadvertent release of correspondence to an alleger to third parties by 

NRC staff, the allegation number is to be clearly typed on the front page of the status letter 

and on the upper right corner of each subsequent page. This will help reduce the possibility 

of staff not recognizing that the letter concerns an allegation and may contain alleger 

identifying information. 

5.9 Allegation Closure 

5.9.a Staff Action 

As assigned, the technical 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 technical branch chief shall 

review and concur in the basis for closing each allegation concern, as developed by the 

technical staff. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.1) Concurrence may be documented in an 

e-mail or a memorandum from the branch chief to the OAC that provides the basis for 

closure of each concern within the allegation, through concurrence in the closure letter, or, 

in those cases in which the branch chief issues the closure letter, by his/her signature. This 

documentation is to be included in the allegation file. 

5.9.b OAC Actions 

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). In some 

instances, 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 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. 

Manual Section 5.9.d 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.2(a)) 

An allegation cannot be closed until all the concerns within the allegation are closed and a 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

195

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 Manual Section 5.9.c below and also 

concurs in the closure document. The OAC is also responsible for entering allegation 

concern closure information in the AMS. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.2(b)) 

5.9.c Documentation of Allegation Evaluation 

5.9.c.1 Closure Document Description

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. 

On the basis of this documentation, and 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 with regard to each concern (the document provided 

to the OAC by responsible staff may be used as the closure memorandum if it contains 

necessary detail and is concurred in by the OAC). 

If a closure letter or closure memorandum makes reference to a licensee’s RFI 

response, the closure documentation should clearly (1) identify each allegation concern 

as provided or as modified by the alleger, (2) describe the licensee’s evaluation and 

response, and (3) document NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response and overall 

conclusions regarding the validity of the concern(s), including any NRC staff 

independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted to validate 

aspects of the licensee’s response. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.3(a)) [Note: Do not 

provide the licensee’s conclusion with regard to whether an allegation concern was 

substantiated in the closure letter or closure memorandum. Only the NRC’s conclusion 

with regard to the validity of the concern is relevant. Including both conclusions in the 

closure document may confuse the reader as to the actual conclusion. This is of 

particular concern for a closure letter to an alleger.] 

If an alleger cannot be contacted or if a decision was reached not to contact the alleger 

upon closure of the allegation, the basis for not contacting the alleger will be 

documented in the allegation file. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.3(b)) A standardized 

closure letter and a standardized closure memorandum to the allegation file are 

available in Manual Exhibits 18 and 19. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.3(c)) Manual 

Exhibit 20 provides a sample closure letter for an allegation involving security-related 

concerns.

5.9.c.2 Closure Document Content 

The final closure document should be a stand-alone document that reiterates each 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

196

concern, the details of concern evaluation by the licensee (if applicable) and the NRC, 

NRC conclusions regarding the validity of the concern, and whether any violations of 

regulatory requirements were identified. Corrective actions taken by a licensee in 

response to an allegation-related RFI, if applicable, should be discussed. The document 

should include a description of any actions taken by the NRC to verify the information 

provided by the licensee in the RFI response. If allegation concern closure is 

documented in an inspection report, the report is to be written in a manner that will 

address relevant issues without acknowledging that the issues were raised in the context 

of an allegation. This document constitutes the basis for closure of the allegation and 

should be included in the allegation file either in hard copy or by reference. 

5.9.c.3 Closure Document Enclosures/Attachments 

The closure letter should include, preferably in a separate enclosure, a restatement of 

the alleger’s concerns along with the results of NRC’s evaluation. The closure letter 

should inform the alleger about actions taken by the licensee to resolve the concerns 

and actions taken by NRC to evaluate and determine the validity of the alleger’s 

concerns. If some or all of the alleger’s concerns were inspected by the NRC, and the 

related NRC inspection report has been issued at the time the closure letter is sent, the 

alleger should be provided with a copy of the NRC inspection report and directed to 

those portions of the inspection report that address his/her concerns. However, if some 

or all of the concerns within an allegation were sent for licensee evaluation by way of an 

RFI, it is not recommended that a copy of the licensee’s response be provided as an 

attachment to the closure letter. The reason for this is to help maintain the viability of 

licensee efforts to review allegation-related RFIs. Specifically, licensee RFI evaluations 

often involve interviews with numerous employees at the facility, and the licensee RFI 

response to NRC often discusses specific comments made by specific interviewees in 

an effort to provide comprehensive feedback about the matter-in-question. The concern 

with providing a copy of the licensee’s response to the alleger is that a licensee 

employee may be less willing in the future to provide information to licensee personnel 

following up on an NRC allegation-related RFI if it is perceived that his/her comments 

are routinely made available by the NRC to an individual (the alleger) who could make 

the information public. 

5.9.c.4 Closure Document Conclusions Related to Concerns Involving a 

Licensee RFI 

As indicated in Manual Section 5.9.c.1, if evaluation of an allegation concern involves an 

allegation-related RFI to the licensee, the NRC closure documentation regarding such a 

concern should include only NRC’s conclusions with regard to the licensee’s response, 

not the licensee’s conclusions. Any NRC independent verification, inspection, or 

investigative efforts should also be documented in the allegation concern closure 

discussion. The documentation of allegation concern closure may reference feedback 

provided by the licensee but should also distinctly describe NRC’s evaluation and 

conclusions regarding the concern based on all pertinent information, including the 

licensee’s RFI response.

5.9.c.5 Closure Letter Marking 

To help prevent the inadvertent release of correspondence to an alleger to third parties 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

197

by NRC staff, the allegation number is to be clearly typed on the front page of the 

closure letter and on the upper right corner of each subsequent page. This will help 

reduce the possibility of staff not recognizing that the letter concerns an allegation and 

may contain alleger identifying information. 

5.9.d Determining Whether an Allegation Concern is Substantiated 

5.9.d.1 Applying the Allegation Definition to Determine Whether an 

Allegation Concern is Substantiated 

Whether or not an allegation concern is to be coded in AMS as “substantiated” is 

determined by the action office, based on the action office’s evaluation of all available 

information and feedback related to the concern, including the assessment of any 

feedback information provided by other NRC offices, State agencies, other Federal 

agencies, or the licensee. To maintain the integrity of the allegation process, the action 

office must determine whether the allegation concern is valid based on the NRC’s 

definition of an allegation, i.e., whether NRC evaluation of the allegation concern 

resulted in the validation of an impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated 

activities. When a licensee’s RFI response is reviewed as part of the NRC’s evaluation 

of an allegation, NRC should only consider the facts and documentary evidence 

provided by the licensee, and not the licensee’s conclusion as to whether a concern was 

substantiated. 

While the licensee’s response to an RFI will often include a conclusion as to whether the 

licensee believes the concern was substantiated, this conclusion may not always 

correlate with NRC’s allegation definition. As an example, a licensee evaluating a chilled 

work environment concern might respond that indication of a chilled work environment 

was identified in a small work group, but a successful team building session was held 

with the work group, and since there is no NRC requirement related to maintaining a 

SCWE, the concern was not substantiated. NRC evaluation of this fact pattern, 

considering the NRC allegation definition, would conclude that an inadequacy 

associated with NRC-regulated activity was substantiated. 

5.9.d.2 Difference Between Allegation Closure Document Discussion and 

Determining Whether to Code an Allegation as Substantiated in AMS 

It is to be emphasized that how allegation concern closure is described in the closure 

document and whether or not the allegation concern should be categorized as 

“substantiated” in AMS are distinctly separate actions. It is possible to “substantiate” any 

statement from an alleger that is ultimately determined to be true, and it is recommended 

that alleger facts/statements/conditions determined to be valid are credited as such in 

the closure documentation. However, as indicated in Manual Section 5.9.d.1, the action 

office must determine whether its evaluation of the allegation concern resulted in the 

validation of an impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activities. If a 

condition described by an alleger is determined to be true, but that affirmed condition is 

not contrary to established procedure or related regulatory guidance, does not have an 

adverse safety impact, or does not reduce safety margin, then such a finding should be 

characterized by the allegation process (in AMS) as being “unsubstantiated.” 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

198

5.9.d.3 Use of the Term “Substantiated” or “Unsubstantiated” in Allegation 

Closure Documentation 

In describing the closure of an allegation concern, it is preferable that an overall 

conclusion be provided indicating that the concern was substantiated, unsubstantiated, 

or partially substantiated, as long as that overall conclusion is well supported by the 

accompanying discussion regarding NRC evaluation of the concern. However, the staff 

should not feel compelled to provide an overall concern conclusion using the term 

“substantiated” or “unsubstantiated” if doing so would muddle the response. If all 

aspects of a concern were found to be valid, including its alleged impropriety or 

inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activities, it would be appropriate to describe 

the overall concern as being “substantiated” or “valid” or “true.” However, if certain 

facts/statements/conditions described by the alleger are found to be true and credit is 

given for those items in the closure document, but the allegation concern itself is not 

determined to be valid, it may be confusing to the alleger to then categorize the overall 

concern in the closure letter as “unsubstantiated.” In such instances, it is more 

appropriate to first acknowledge those alleger facts/statements/conditions that were 

found to be true, then indicate that NRC was unable to confirm or validate an impropriety 

or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activity. 

5.9.d.4 Other Considerations in Determining Whether a Concern is 

Substantiated 

External stakeholder perception also exists that NRC inappropriately considers actions 

taken by licensees in direct response to allegation concerns as a means to interpret the 

concern as “unsubstantiated.” When a licensee has taken corrective actions in response 

to an allegation concern, it is likely that the licensee has recognized an inadequacy in 

the handling of a particular issue and is pursuing correction of that inadequacy. NRC 

staff evaluating the allegation are to consider these corrective actions and the reasons 

the corrective actions were taken by the licensee when forming a conclusion related to 

the allegation concern. If the licensee was prompted to take corrective action to resolve 

the concern from a nuclear or radiological safety perspective, then it is likely that such an 

allegation concern would be considered “substantiated” in AMS. However, it is

recognized that in some instances, corrective actions are taken by the licensee for 

administrative reasons or as a precautionary measure, and not necessarily to resolve a 

safety matter. 

5.9.d.5 Possibility of Alleger Disagreement with NRC Conclusion 

Given the nature of many allegation concerns, which often involve opinions, differing 

interpretations, or a lack of clarity with regard to whether an activity was appropriate, or 

in accordance with regulatory requirements, it is understandable that there will be 

occasions when an alleger disagrees with or is confused by NRC’s response. The 

staff’s goal is to be as concise as possible when rendering a conclusion with regard to 

an allegation concern, so that instances in which an alleger disagrees with the NRC 

characterization of the issue are minimized. When such instances occur, the allegation 

closure letter offers the alleger an opportunity to question or challenge the NRC 

conclusions. 

5.9.d.6 “Unsubstantiated” Discrimination Concerns
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

199

On occasion, an NRC conclusion that a discrimination concern was “unsubstantiated” 

will be misleading to an alleger. In a number of discrimination cases, while licensee 

actions representing potential retaliation, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination 

may be identified during the course of the investigation, the totality of the evidence does 

not show by a preponderance of the evidence that a discriminatory act occurred. In 

such instances, it is more appropriate to indicate to the alleger that NRC did not find 

sufficient evidence to conclude that discrimination occurred, rather than to state that 

NRC did not substantiate that discrimination occurred or that NRC has concluded that 

discrimination did not occur. 

Suggested Wording: “Based on our investigation, we did not find sufficient evidence to 

conclude that discrimination occurred. This does not mean that we have determined 

that discrimination did not occur. It means that the evidence available to the NRC was 

not sufficient to prove that discrimination occurred.”

5.9.e Discussion of Enforcement/Assessment Process Outcomes in Allegation 

Concern Closure Documentation

5.9.e.1 Closure Documentation Reference to Enforcement Outcome – Level 

of Detail 

While it is appropriate to indicate in response to an alleger’s concern whether the NRC 

evaluation of the concern identified a violation of NRC requirements or an ROP finding, it 

is not imperative that the alleger be informed of the specific enforcement action taken or 

finding categorization applied via the ROP. In other words, it is sufficient, in most 

instances, to indicate that a violation or finding was identified and that the categorization 

of the violation or ROP finding and the licensee’s follow up activities will be determined 

by the NRC Enforcement Process or the ROP. However, if the violation or ROP finding 

has already been determined or categorized, and responsible staff believe that providing 

specific information about the NRC violation or finding will improve the concern 

response, this information may be discussed in the closure letter. With regard to a 

substantiated discrimination concern in particular, it is logical that the alleger would have 

an interest in the specific NRC regulatory action taken against the licensee. Examples 

of closure letter wording applicable to different types of violations and findings are 

provided in Manual Exhibit 18. 

5.9.e.2 Provision of Operating Reactor Enforcement Process Outcomes Not 

Documented in Inspection Reports 

As indicated in Manual Section 5.9.c.3, if inspection effort and enforcement action (if 

any) related to an allegation is documented in an inspection report, and the related 

inspection report is issued before the closure letter is distributed, appropriate portions of 

the inspection report should be included in the closure documentation sent to the alleger. 

However, it is to be emphasized that allegation follow-up is not normally documented in 

an inspection report unless it results in a finding warranting documentation in 

accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapters 0610, 0612, 0613, 0615, 0616, and 

0617 (i.e., the violation is more than minor or the finding is Green or greater). If the 

evaluation of an allegation results in a minor violation, the minor violation should be 

processed per standard practice and should normally not be documented in an 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

200

inspection report (i.e., the fact that the minor violation is associated with an allegation 

should not be used as justification to document it in an inspection report). 

For minor violations, the licensee is to be informed of the minor violation (normally at an 

inspection exit meeting) before the alleger is informed of the minor violation either 

verbally or in writing via allegation closure documentation. The closure documentation 

to the alleger must explain that, in most cases, NRC does not document minor violations 

in inspection reports. While it is appropriate to notify the licensee about the minor 

violation, the licensee should not be informed that the minor violation is related to an 

allegation (although the licensee may already be aware of that an issue is allegationrelated if the licensee had been previously informed about the issue via an allegationrelated RFI). The date and means by which the licensee was notified of the minor 

violation should be documented in the allegation file. 

Caution: NRC Inspection Manual Chapters 0612, 0616, and 0617 currently contain 

incorrect guidance noting that a minor violation can be documented in an inspection 

report solely for the purpose of closing an allegation. Part I, Section 2.1 of the 

Enforcement Manual indicates that there are “very few exceptions” when a minor 

violation should be documented in an inspection report. Allegation follow-up is not 

indicated as one of those exceptions. For this reason, if a minor violation is documented 

in an inspection report solely to document allegation closure, and circumstances do not 

reflect one of the “exceptions” noted in the Enforcement Manual, the fact that the minor 

violation is related to an allegation would be established. Offices responsible for 

updating IMCs 0612, 0616, and 0617 have been notified and intend to change these 

procedures in future. 

5.9.f Notification of Results of OI Investigations and Assists 

5.9.f.1 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. Part II, Section 1.1.5 of the NRC Enforcement Manual provides 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 whether and how to inform the licensee about the OI investigation 

results. 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 Safeguards Information or sensitive 

security information) and should not contain information that could reveal the identity of 

an alleger. In keeping with alleger identity protection considerations, the distribution list 

of additional entities and individuals receiving a copy of the letter both internal and 

external to NRC should be minimized (e.g., to NRC staff responsible for follow up of the 

allegation, to a senior licensee representative (usually the letter addressee), and to other 

external stakeholders by commitment). If NRC is requested by an additional external 

stakeholder to provide a copy of the letter that was sent to the licensee, a copy may be 

provided since the letter was initially placed on the public docket. The closure letter to 

the alleger will, if applicable, inform him or her that the investigation has been closed and 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

201

will provide the results of the OI investigation and the staff’s conclusions (to the extent 

practical considering any sensitive security information). Both the letter to the licensee 

and the letter to the alleger should indicate that the completed OI report may be 

requested under the FOIA. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.4(a)) 

More specifically, the action office issues an e-mail to cognizant individuals in the action 

office and other headquarters offices describing the issue and OI's investigation 

conclusion and giving those individuals 3 weeks to review the report and provide 

dissenting views. This is often referred to as the “3-week e-mail.” [Note: If the alleger 

has not talked with OI during the course of the investigation, and the investigation is 

closed administratively (i.e., OI does not provide an investigation conclusion), it is not 

necessary to send the 3-week e-mail.] If no dissenting views are received during the 3-

week review period, the action office will prepare a closure letter to the alleger and a 

letter to the licensee indicating that the investigation has been closed and providing the 

results of the investigation (either a summary of the OI investigation results or a copy of 

the OI report synopsis may be provided). Provision of a brief factual summary of the OI 

investigation results is preferred vs. the OI report synopsis so that the closure 

correspondence related to the unsubstantiated wrongdoing concern appropriately 

reflects that the conclusion is an agency conclusion vs. solely an OI conclusion. If the 

action office chooses to provide the OI synopsis vs. a factual summary, the letters to the 

alleger and/or the licensee should reflect that responsible NRC technical staff reviewed 

the investigation report and agreed with OI’s conclusion. If the only licensee employee 

interviewed by OI was the alleger, the licensee may not be aware that an investigation 

was opened. In this case, it is not necessary to send a letter to the licensee. If OI 

speaks with any licensee employee other than the alleger, the letter informing the 

licensee of investigation closure will be provided. 

The OI synopsis normally should not contain information that could reveal the identity of 

the alleger. However, if the action office chooses to provide the OI synopsis vs. a factual 

summary and believes the release of the OI synopsis, as written, may reveal the identity 

of the alleger, it is acceptable to paraphrase the OI synopsis in the letter to the licensee, 

rather than attaching the synopsis. Similarly, if a brief factual summary is provided vs. 

the OI synopsis, the summary should be written in a manner that does not reveal the 

identity of the alleger. 

The approving official of the OI report, or his/her designee, shall concur in the letters 

providing OI’s investigation conclusion, and the Director, OE shall agree (by way of no 

dissenting views) that the letters can be transmitted. This concurrence/agreement 

indicates that no dissenting reviews were received or the dissenting views were 

resolved, DOJ declined the case, or completed its action, and NRC does not intend to 

take enforcement action. 

5.9.f.2 Notification of OI Investigation Closure When Enforcement Action Is 

Pending 

When an enforcement action is pending, the alleger cannot normally be informed of the 

results of the investigation until the licensee is informed. Part II, Section 1.116 of the 

NRC Enforcement Manual also provides guidance for staff actions regarding the review, 

determination, and implementation of enforcement actions, including notification of the 

licensee. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.4(b)(i)) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

202

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 information provided to the licensee about the results of the OI investigation 

(as described in Section 6.2.3 Part II, Sections 1.1.5.1 and 1.1.6 of the NRC 

Enforcement Manual) along with a copy of the letter that transmits that information to the 

licensee (which will include a redacted copy of the OI investigation report) shall be 

provided to the alleger at the time these documents are sent to the licensee. The letter 

to the licensee is issued as a public document (placed in ADAMS) and should not 

contain information that could reveal the identity of the alleger. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.L.4(b)(ii)) In keeping with alleger identity protection considerations, the distribution list

of additional entities and individuals receiving a copy of the letter both internal and 

external to NRC should be minimized (e.g., to NRC staff responsible for follow up of the 

allegation, to a senior licensee representative (usually the letter addressee), and to other 

external stakeholders by commitment). If NRC is requested by an additional external 

stakeholder to provide a copy of the letter that was sent to the licensee, a copy may be 

provided since the letter was made public when it was issued. 

More specifically, the licensee is informed of the results through the issuance of a letter 

indicating that NRC is considering an issue for escalated enforcement and inviting the 

licensee to an enforcement conference or offering the licensee the choice of responding 

in writing. [Note: Prior to an enforcement conference, the licensee is offered an 

opportunity to approach resolution of the proposed enforcement through mediation with 

the NRC using Post-Investigation ADR). This is not to be confused with the offer of 

Early-ADR discussed in Manual Section 5.2.f which involves mediation between the 

alleger and the alleger’s employer prior to the initiation of an OI investigation into a 

matter of alleged discrimination.] 

The concurrences on the letter to the licensee are those required by the enforcement 

process and also serve as the approval to provide a redacted version of the OI report to 

the alleger. If the enforcement action is against an individual, without accompanying 

action against a licensee or contractor, OE should be contacted before providing a 

redacted version of the OI report to the alleger. Copies of these letters should be 

included in the allegation file. 

An individual (or an individual’s attorney with an individual’s expressed consent) may 

request a copy of the transcript of his/her own interview with OI in order to prepare for a 

preliminary enforcement conference. As long as the OI investigation is completed and 

closed, and the Directors of OI and OE are consulted and agree, the transcript may be 

released. 

If the proposed enforcement is resolved through Post-Investigation ADR, the licensee 

will receive a Confirmatory Order confirming the actions agreed upon during the PostInvestigation ADR mediation session. The Confirmatory Order is issued on the public 

record and a period of time (normally, 20 days) is allotted wherein interested persons 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

203

that may be affected by the Order are afforded an opportunity to request a hearing. In 

the case of an OI substantiated discrimination concern, it is reasonable to assume that 

the alleger would like to be informed about the content of the Confirmatory Order. In this 

instance, action should be taken so that the alleger is provided a copy of the 

Confirmatory Order within the hearing request period after the order is issued. 

5.9.f.3 Release of OI Investigation Synopsis or Redacted Report 

Concerning Investigations of Discrimination to Parties in an 

Ongoing DOL Proceeding 

In instances in which 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 Section 6.2.3 Part II, Sections 1.1.5.1 and 1.1.6 of the 

Enforcement Manual (see Allegation Manual Section 5.9.f.2). In those instances when 

the NRC decides to await completion of the DOL process before proceeding with the 

enforcement process, or for unsubstantiated cases, an OI investigation synopsis or an 

OI report summary will be provided to both parties, along with information on how to 

submit a request for the complete OI report under the FOIA, if desired. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.L.4(c)) 

If, after discussing the results of a substantiated OI investigation with DOJ, DOJ 

indicates an interest in prosecution, OE will determine when the parties to the DOL 

proceeding will be informed of OI's conclusion, and inform the responsible regional or 

program office of its decision. Once OE has approved the release of the OI findings to 

the parties to the DOL proceeding, the responsible regional or headquarters office will 

prepare the letters transmitting the findings. The letters will inform both parties of OI's 

conclusion and note that the agency is reviewing the conclusion and that the OI 

conclusion does not represent the final agency position, pending NRC review of final 

DOL decisions. The OI conclusion will be provided by way of an OI report summary or 

by including the OI investigation synopsis as an attachment to the letters. The OI 

synopsis normally should not contain information that could reveal the identity of the 

alleger. However, if the regional or headquarters office chooses to provide the OI 

synopsis vs. a factual summary and believes the release of the OI synopsis, as written, 

may reveal the identity of the alleger, it is acceptable to paraphrase the OI synopsis in 

the letter to the licensee, rather than attaching the synopsis. Similarly, if a brief factual 

summary is provided vs. the OI synopsis, it should be written in a manner that does not 

reveal the identity of the alleger. 

If a pre-decisional enforcement conference is to be held with regard to the discrimination 

concern, the Director, OE, will decide whether the licensee will be provided a redacted 

copy of the OI report rather than an OI report summary or an investigation synopsis. If 

the redacted report is provided to the licensee, a copy of the redacted report will also be 

provided to the alleger, and the redacted report will placed on the public record. The 

letters also will inform both parties that the complete OI report may be requested under 

the FOIA, if desired. The official approving the OI report will concur in the letter to the 

licensee or contractor if the Director of OE, or his or her designee, agrees that the letter 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

204

can be transmitted. The responsible regional or headquarters program office will place 

copies of the letter in the related allegation and enforcement files. At this point in time, if 

the OI report is requested under FOIA, even though the DOL case and related allegation 

file remain open, the OI report would be released, after review and appropriate redaction 

(i.e., a 7(A) FOIA exemption should not be applied in this instance) (see Manual Section 

6.7). 

If final DOL decisions do not alter an earlier determination that a discrimination concern 

was unsubstantiated, the alleger will receive a closure letter indicating that the 

completed DOL proceedings did not alter the prior finding of no discrimination. The 

licensee should also be notified of the NRC’s final conclusion in a brief letter on the 

public record. For substantiated discrimination cases, the licensee will be informed of 

the NRC’s final conclusion by way of the Enforcement process. 

5.9.f.4 Closure of Issues in OI Assists to the Staff 

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 

Field Office Director 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 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. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.L.4(d)(i) 

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 Manual Sections 5.9.f.1, 5.9.f.2, and 5.9.f.3. 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.4(d)(ii)) 

For an OI Assist to Staff that does not progress to a full investigation, a 3-week e-mail, 

as mentioned in Manual Section 5.9.f.1 above, does not need to be developed, since no 

decision has been made with regard to a matter of potential wrongdoing. However, if OI 

has interviewed other members of the licensee’s staff in addition to the alleger, a letter 

should be sent to the licensee, similar to the letter described in Manual Section 5.9.f.1, 

indicating the reason for the OI review and the fact that no indication of wrongdoing was 

identified. 

5.9.g Specified Allegation Closure Guidelines 

Respectively, Manual Exhibits 18, 20, and 19 provide sample closure documents for use 

when (1) the allegation involves other than security-related concerns, (2) the allegation 

involves security-related concerns, and (3) the allegation involves an anonymous alleger, 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

205

NRC staff-identified or licensee-identified potential wrongdoing, or an alleger who 

specifically requests no correspondence from the NRC. Certain types of allegation 

concerns require the application of additional specific guidance when developing closure 

documentation. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.3(d)) Examples would include closure of a 

discrimination concern that has been resolved through Early ADR, determining the amount 

of information that may be included in an allegation closure letter regarding sensitive, 

security-related concerns, 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 below. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.L.3(d)(ii)) 

5.9.g.1 Allegation Closure Documentation for a Concern Involving an 

Allegation-Related RFI to the Licensee 

As indicated in Manual Section 5.6.d.8, in addition to reviewing the licensee’s response 

to an allegation-related RFI for adequacy (i.e., scope and depth, evaluator 

independence, evaluator competence, corrective actions, potential compliance issues, 

overall conclusion), staff review should include some alternate verification of aspects of 

the information provided. 

When the staff has completed its evaluation and determined that sufficient information is 

available to determine the validity of the allegation concerns, the assigned technical 

branch will develop allegation closure documentation for ultimate incorporation into a 

closure letter to the alleger or closure memorandum to the allegation file, as appropriate. 

The closure documentation should summarize pertinent information from the licensee’s 

response, and specifically describe the staff’s evaluation and conclusions regarding the 

allegation concerns based on all pertinent information, including the licensee’s RFI 

response. In particular, the closure documentation should clearly: 

 Identify each concern as stated in the acknowledgment letter or as modified in more

recent interactions with the alleger;

 Describe the licensee’s evaluation and response, but not the licensee’s

conclusion(s), and;

 Document the NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response and overall conclusions

regarding the validity of the concern.

The description of NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response should articulate any 

NRC staff independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted to 

validate aspects of the licensee’s response. Specific details should be included as 

necessary to convey the extent of the NRC evaluation. In addition, the description 

should describe the safety/security and regulatory significance of a substantiated 

concern. 

5.9.g.2 Closure of a Discrimination Concern Resolved Through Early ADR 

If a discrimination concern has been resolved through Early ADR, the settlement 

agreement will be reviewed by OGC, in coordination with OE, to assure that the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

206

agreement does not contain any restrictive language potentially in violation of applicable 

NRC employee protection rules. Given an acceptable agreement, the discrimination 

concern can be closed via a closure letter to the alleger acknowledging the agreement. 

The employee protection regulations require, in part, that ...”no agreement affecting the 

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including an agreement to 

settle a complaint filed by an employee with the DOL pursuant to Section 211 may 

contain any provision which would prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage an 

employee from participating in protected activity...including, but not limited to, providing 

information to the NRC, or to his other employer on potential violations or other matters 

within NRC’s regulatory responsibilities.” 

The OE ADR Program Manger will notify the OAC of the results of OGC’s review of the 

settlement and provide the OAC with a copy of the agreement for the allegation file. If 

OGC determines that the agreement is acceptable, the OE ADR Program Director will 

send brief letters to the alleger and the licensee informing both parties that NRC has 

received and reviewed the settlement agreement and found no restrictive clauses, and 

that an NRC investigation will not be conducted (see Manual Exhibit 21). Since the 

settlement agreements will not be final until three days after the agreement is signed, the 

OACs should ensure both that OGC has accepted the agreement and that it has been at 

least three days since the settlement was signed before the allegation file is closed. 

Given an acceptable agreement, the action office can issue a closure letter to the 

alleger. 

If the Early ADR settlement agreement is unacceptable to the NRC, NRC will contact the 

Early ADR mediation contractor who will contact the mediator. OGC may also contact 

the attorney for either party or both parties to discuss the content of the settlement 

agreement. If the OAC has not been notified of a settlement agreement within 90 days, 

the OAC should contact the OE ADR Program Manager to determine the status of the 

case. 

Normally, if a discrimination concern includes DOL involvement, the related allegation 

file will not be closed until after the final DOL decision is made because DOL decisions 

are reviewed by NRC to determine if they may impact a preliminary NRC decision 

related to the discrimination concern. However, if a discrimination concern has already 

been resolved via Early ADR, the outcome of a related DOL proceeding will not have a 

bearing on NRC’s conclusion regarding the discrimination concern. The action office 

may leave the allegation file open awaiting the final DOL action; however, additional 

correspondence with the alleger regarding the discrimination concern is unnecessary 

since NRC’s conclusion will not change. If the action office chooses to leave the 

allegation file open and continue corresponding with the alleger while the discrimination 

concern remains open in the DOL process, the correspondence shall provide no 

indication that the NRC's conclusion regarding the discrimination concern could change 

as a result of a subsequent positive DOL finding. 

It is also acceptable for the action office to consider closing the allegation, even though 

the related DOL proceeding has not been completed. If a subsequent DOL decision 

concludes that the alleger was discriminated against, Part II, Section 1.3.17 of the 

Enforcement Manual indicates that NRC would consider issuing a letter requesting the 

licensee to describe SCWE impacts resulting from the DOL finding of discrimination. For 

this reason, if the action office chooses to close the allegation file because the 

discrimination concern was settled via Early ADR, a new “non-allegation” shall be 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

207

opened in AMS to track the ongoing DOL proceeding. The non-allegation will not have 

an associated alleger, or require correspondence with an alleger. It will be a placeholder 

to track the status of the DOL case. If DOL ultimately closes the case as 

unsubstantiated, the non-allegation would be closed by the OAC with no further action. 

If DOL was to conclude that discrimination occurred, appropriate staff will be informed so 

that actions can be initiated (ARB or enforcement panel) to discuss the possible 

issuance of a letter requesting the licensee to describe SCWE impacts resulting from the 

DOL finding of discrimination. 

5.9.g.3 Closure of an Agreement State Concern When the Alleger Has 

Requested that NRC Protect His/Her Identity 

For allegations involving Agreement State licensee activities, when an alleger has not 

permitted the NRC to provide his/her identity to the Agreement State, standard practice 

is to include in the closure letter to the alleger, a copy or summary of the Agreement 

State’s response to the referred allegation. It is noted that although it is expected that 

state entities overseeing Agreement State licensee activities will retain a program that 

can receive and evaluate concerns provided by external sources, the agreement 

between the Agreement State and the NRC does not mandate that that the Agreement 

State’s program be equivalent to the NRC’s allegation program. Therefore, the 

Agreement State may not always evaluate an alleger’s concern to the degree and in the 

time frame that the same concern would be evaluated under the NRC’s allegation 

program. Although done very rarely, an Agreement State may choose, for example, to 

limit its review, or not to initiate a review of a submitted concern if the issue was 

determined to be of lower significance with matters of higher significance taking 

precedence. In such instances, the NRC closure letter to the alleger or closure 

memorandum to the allegation file should describe the Agreement State feedback and 

indicate that NRC evaluates the Agreement State’s program for evaluating concerns 

from external sources during periodic visits and IMPEP reviews. 

5.9.g.4 Closure of Security-Related Concerns 

5.9.g.4(a) Level of Detail in Closure Letter and AMS 

For a security-related concern, the level of detail to be provided in the closure letter 

to the alleger will vary, based upon the sensitivity of the concern (see Manual 

Section 5.9.g.4(c)). Details that are not to be provided in the closure letter to the 

alleger as described below are to be included in the allegation file, and recorded in 

AMS by the OAC (except for Safeguards Information). AMS and other internal 

allegation documentation that contain staff findings regarding security-related issues 

(such as a closure memorandum) should continue to include both the NRC 

inspection or licensee evaluation details and information concerning whether the 

concern was substantiated. 

5.9.g.4(b) Applicable Security-Related Issues 

This guidance specifically addresses those closure letters to allegers that contain 

information or records concerning a licensee’s physical protection, classified matter 

protection, material control and accounting program for special nuclear material, 

Security Orders, or Confirmatory Action Letters. With regard to fitness for duty 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

208

issues, the guidance applies only to those issues that are programmatic or relate 

specifically to security personnel. The guidance specifically relates to securityrelated information that is not designated as Safeguards Information or classified as 

National Security Information or Restricted Data, but is nonetheless sensitive 

because it relates to the security of NRC-licensed facilities or materials. 

5.9.g.4(c) Security Information Categories

Information provided in closure letters to allegers with regard to security-related 

concerns will be limited in accordance with the sensitivity of the concern, as defined 

by the following categories which describe the concern sensitivity from high to low. 

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 conclusions.

 Category II - Security-related concerns that, if true, would constitute a more than

minor finding or violation 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 either state that the security finding(s)/violation(s)

are Greater than Green (for Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) 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.

 Category III - Security-related concerns that, if true, would, at most, constitute a

minor finding or violation at Severity Level IV or lower, 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 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

actions) or Severity Level IV or lower.

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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.3.(D)(i)) 

5.9.g.4(d) Guidance for Closure Letters to Allegers Based on Security 

Information Category 

Category I 

The staff will provide limited information for both substantiated and unsubstantiated 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

209

security-related concerns that involve a potential generic industry vulnerability. 

Letters to allegers will reiterate the issues raised in sufficient detail. Cognizant NSIR 

and/or regional security inspection management will concur on the closure letter to 

the alleger. Closure letter language similar to the following would be used: 

“While we are fully committed to our goal of ensuring openness in our regulatory 

process, we must balance that goal with ensuring the continued safety and 

secure operation of nuclear facilities in our country. Normally, when we have 

completed our review of an allegation, we provide the concerned individual with 

information as to whether his/her concern was substantiated and details on the 

actions taken by the NRC to evaluate the concern. However, due to the nature of 

the security-related issue(s) associated with your concern(s) and to ensure that 

we are not unnecessarily releasing information that would reveal any potential 

security-related vulnerabilities, we are unable to provide you with specific details 

regarding the NRC’s evaluation of your concern.”

Category II 

For those security-related concerns that, if true, would constitute more than a minor 

finding or violation at greater than Severity Level IV, as determined by applicable 

guidance or review panels, the staff will provide limited information in response to 

both substantiated and unsubstantiated concerns. Letters to allegers will reiterate 

the issues raised in sufficient detail. Cognizant NSIR and/or regional security 

inspection management will concur on the closure letter to the alleger. The sample 

closure letter language shown above for Category I concerns can be used in 

Category II closure letters as well, with the last sentence alternatively indicating that 

only limited information regarding the NRC’s evaluation can be provided, and with 

the addition of language similar to the following: 

“While we cannot provide the specific details regarding our evaluation of your 

concern, we note that an NRC assessment was conducted in the security 

area that included a review of your concern(s). Based on that NRC 

assessment, no findings were identified. [Or] The NRC assessment 

identified at least one finding. Identified deficiencies were promptly corrected 

or addressed by compensatory action, thereby establishing licensee 

compliance with applicable physical protection and security requirements. To 

ensure that we do not unnecessarily release information that would reveal 

potential security-related vulnerabilities, we are unable to inform you if any 

finding is specifically associated with the concern(s) you raised.]”

If the alleger requests additional information and the staff can verify that he/she 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, 

the staff will offer to discuss the specifics of the agency’s actions and conclusions 

with the alleger. Employment and position verification will not be sought without prior 

permission from the alleger. 

Category III 

For those security-related concerns that, if true, would, at most, constitute a minor 

finding or violation at Severity Level IV or lower, as determined by applicable 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

210

guidance and review panels, the staff will provide a complete response to the alleger, 

once required compensatory actions, if any, are in place. The response to both 

substantiated and unsubstantiated concerns will include a description of the actions 

taken by the staff to evaluate the concern and the staff’s conclusion regarding the 

validity of the concern, but would not include a description of the compensatory 

actions taken. Cognizant NSIR and/or regional security inspection management will 

concur on the closure letter to the alleger. 

If follow up of a security-related concern results in a minor finding or violation 

requiring compensatory actions, and if the alleger requests additional information 

and the staff can verify that he/she 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, the staff will offer to discuss the compensatory 

actions with the alleger. Employment and position verification will not be sought 

without prior permission from the alleger. 

A tabulation of the security information categories with illustrative examples is 

provided in Manual Exhibit 22, and a sample allegation closure letter reflecting 

information to be provided for the three security information categories is provided in 

Manual Exhibit 20. 

It is recognized that it may be appropriate to provide allegers with additional details 

regarding the agency’s handling of their security-related concerns in some instances. 

Such deviations must be coordinated with NSIR and the Office of Information 

Services, as appropriate. 

Regardless of the categorization of the concern, NRC will continue to protect 

information that an adversary could exploit. Each action office shall coordinate their 

efforts with NSIR and/or regional security inspection management. 

5.9.g.5 Content of Closure Letter Information to Alleger Indicating that 

Radiation Exposure Has Caused a Medical Condition 

For an allegation concern involving radiation exposure, an alleger may occasionally 

indicate that he/she believes that the radiation exposure has resulted in a medical 

condition, and request NRC advice or commentary regarding the medical condition. 

After responding to the concern about the alleged radiation exposure, the following 

discussion may be provided regarding the alleger’s request for feedback about his/her 

medical condition: 

“In your (conversation on (date)) OR (letter dated (date)), you indicated that your alleged 

exposure to radioactive materials may have contributed to your medical condition. While 

we are sympathetic to the illness you are battling, please understand that the NRC 

cannot offer a medical diagnosis or make recommendations for medical treatment. We 

assume that you are under the care of a physician for your illness and recommend that 

you consult your physician regarding this matter.” 

5.9.g.6 Items Returned to the Staff Without a Full Investigation by OI 

As indicated in Manual Section 5.7.a.6(a), matters returned to the staff by OI without 

having completed a full investigation will be handled by the staff as part of its established 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

211

process for resolving inspection findings. Staff follow-up may include additional 

inspections, written requests for information from the licensee, meetings between the 

staff and the licensee, proceeding with enforcement action on the basis of 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 in accordance with the guidance specified in this Manual. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section V.F.1) Part II, Section 1.1.19 of the Enforcement Manual includes additional 

guidance regarding actions to be taken if OI administratively closes an investigation and 

returns the matter to the technical staff.

Notwithstanding the above, assuming that enforcement is not warranted, it is noted that 

items returned to the staff without a full investigation by OI may be closed when the 

appropriate regional administrator or headquarters office director determines that the 

technical issues involved do not warrant the expenditure of additional agency resources. 

These determinations should be documented in a memorandum to the allegation file. 

5.9.g.7 Closure of Chilling Effect Concerns 

5.9.g.7(a) Closure of a Chilling Effect Concern Affecting One Individual 

NRC cannot draw a definitive conclusion related to a concern from one individual 

that he/she was chilled. In making such an allegation, the alleger is providing his/her 

personal reaction to the occurrence. Therefore, NRC cannot respond by indicating 

that the alleger did not have the reaction described or that he/she reacted incorrectly. 

The only response NRC can provide to a single individual’s assertion of a chilling 

effect is to evaluate the occurrence described and provide feedback as to whether 

NRC believes a “reasonable person” would find the occurrence to be chilling in 

nature. If action was taken by the licensee, the NRC response to such a concern 

can also inform the alleger as to the nature of those licensee actions. For example, 

a possible response to the alleger might be...”The licensee recognized that the 

statement made to you could have been perceived negatively, and has counseled 

the individual who made the statement.” If the action office is unaware of any actions 

taken by the licensee in response to the assertion of chilling effect, another option 

would be to notify the licensee about the issue for information only, without providing 

the alleger’s identity. If the alleger objects to such an action, the information should 

normally not be provided to the licensee, and the concern should be closed with no 

further action. 

5.9.g.7(b) Closure of Unsubstantiated Chilled Work Environment 

Concerns 

An allegation of a chilled work environment may be evaluated through a number of 

inputs depending on the specifics of the allegation, including existing NRC 

knowledge regarding the facility SCWE, NRC follow-up inspection activity, questions 

asked during an OI Assist or during ongoing OI investigation activity involving the 

same facility, licensee response to an RFI, results of recent licensee surveys related 

to the site SCWE and safety culture, and results of NRC’s most recent PI&R 

inspection or other inspections that evaluate the condition of the SCWE. NRC’s 

conclusion regarding the allegation may be based on any or all of these inputs. If 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

212

NRC is unable to conclude that a chilled work environment exists, the closure 

documentation should inform the alleger about the various inputs contributing to this 

conclusion, and also include a statement that based on those inputs the NRC could 

not conclude that a chilled work environment existed with regard to the 

department/facility in question. 

5.9.g.7(c) Closure of a Substantiated Chilled Work Environment 

Concern Not Involving a Chilling Effect Letter 

As a result of the inputs noted in Manual Section 5.9.g.7(b), the NRC may conclude 

that a chilled work environment did exist, as asserted by the alleger, but also that the 

licensee has taken or is taking appropriate corrective actions to address the matter 

that created the chilled work environment and to mitigate its consequences. In such 

instances, the allegation closure documentation should inform the alleger about the 

various inputs contributing to NRC’s conclusion that a chilled work environment did 

exist in the department/facility in question. The closure documentation should also 

describe the corrective actions the licensee has taken or is taking and why NRC 

believes those actions are appropriate and sufficiently comprehensive to address the 

current problem and to mitigate its potential to negatively affect the remainder of the 

facility workforce. The alleger should also be offered an opportunity to re-contact 

NRC in the future if he/she finds the licensee’s corrective actions to be ineffective 

and/or if the work environment concerns persist or recur. 

5.9.g.7(d) Chilling Effect/Chilled Work Environment Concerns Closed as 

a Result of a Chilling Effect Letter Issued in the Absence of 

a Finding of Discrimination 

Manual Section 5.2.j.6(a) describes the circumstances warranting NRC issuance of a 

CEL to the licensee in the absence of a finding of discrimination. Briefly, such a 

letter is issued when available inputs provide indication of an ongoing SCWE 

problem at the facility and NRC is concerned that the licensee has not made 

sufficient progress in addressing the problem. These letters are the tool that NRC 

uses to publicly inform workers that the agency has engaged management about the 

SCWE problem and will be monitoring the licensee’s actions. Often, in advance of 

the issuance of such a CEL, the NRC will have received multiple allegations 

regarding the chilled work environment at the facility. Since the CEL is a public 

document and provides NRC’s conclusions regarding the facility SCWE as well as 

NRC’s intentions to assess and monitor the licensee’s response actions, these 

allegations may be closed based on the issuance of the CEL. 

Also, after the issuance of the CEL, NRC may receive subsequent allegations that 

the chilled work environment persists and/or that the licensee’s corrective actions are 

not working to resolve the SCWE problem. It is not uncommon for NRC to receive 

additional chilling effect allegations for a considerable period of time after the 

issuance of a CEL. SCWE problems warranting the issuance of a CEL are complex 

and are often caused by a number of contributing factors that have been allowed to 

persist for an extended time frame. Such problems are not remedied quickly. 

Months to years of effort are often required of the licensee to remedy the problems 

that caused the chilled work environment, train managers and staff, as appropriate, 

monitor performance in the SCWE area as corrective actions are being implemented 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

213

to assure that the corrective actions are working and useful, and regain the trust of 

the workforce. If a SCWE allegation received after the issuance of a CEL is a matter 

that is reflective of the previously identified problem that should be addressed by the 

corrective actions that are in progress, the alleger should be so informed. If a SCWE 

allegation received after the issuance of a CEL involves factors that are different than 

the previously identified problem, the allegation should be evaluated as a new SCWE 

concern. 

5.9.g.8 Evaluation/Closure of Remaining Open Allegation Concerns After a 

Reactor Facility Has Ceased Power Operation 

When a power reactor is permanently shut down, the licensee must provide NRC with a 

formal declaration (per 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i)) that power operations have permanently 

ceased. As this action is being accomplished by the licensee, there will likely be a 

population of remaining open allegation concerns related to the facility while it was in an 

operational condition. The action office must review these remaining open concerns to 

determine how/whether they will be evaluated and how they will be closed. 

Investigations/evaluations related to remaining open wrongdoing or discrimination 

concerns will continue to be processed to closure, since the possibility exists that an 

alleged wrongdoer could obtain employment with another licensee and possibly engage 

in similar (wrongful) activity. The disposition of other open allegation concerns will be 

determined by the action office on a case-by-case basis. 

If NRC actions related to a specific allegation concern are to be altered from the actions 

originally directed by the ARB, the concern should be discussed via a follow-up ARB 

meeting, so that the amended actions may be presented to senior management (the 

ARB chairman) and documented in the allegation file. The following options are 

available to the action office, with examples of factors that may be considered by 

responsible staff: 

Option 1: Continue to evaluate the allegation as originally directed by the ARB 

- The concern will be relevant to licensee activities in a non-operational condition. 

- NRC staff evaluation activity related to the concern has already been completed. In 

this instance, it would be appropriate to provide the alleger with feedback related to 

the already completed evaluation. 

- An NRC inspection/evaluation planned while the plant was operating is one that is 

performed regardless of operational status and will be conducted notwithstanding the 

plant’s transition to non-operational status. If such an inspection/evaluation is to be 

conducted, and it is reasonable to incorporate the allegation review within the 

inspection/evaluation activity, the allegation evaluation should be accomplished in 

this manner. 

Option 2: Modify the allegation evaluation 

- Send an RFI to the licensee vs. conducting an inspection that was originally directed 

by the ARB. If a previously planned NRC inspection will no longer be conducted 

because of the plant’s transition to non-operational status, but responsible NRC staff 

believe that obtaining feedback regarding the concern is relevant for other reasons, 

an RFI to the licensee is a means of gathering such information. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

214

- Send the concern to the licensee for information only vs. conducting an NRC 

inspection or requesting feedback from the licensee via an RFI. If responsible staff 

believe that evaluation of the concern by NRC is not relevant because of the plant’s 

transition to non-operational status, but that the licensee may gain some perspective 

on the work environment at the facility by learning about issues that are being 

submitted to NRC, this option may be appropriate. In this instance, sending a 

concern to the licensee for information only would constitute closure of the concern. 

Option 3: Close the concern with no additional action 

- Concern does not have a bearing on current (non-operational) activities at the 

facility. If responsible staff believe that accomplishing allegation evaluation as 

prescribed by the original ARB is irrelevant because of the plant’s transition to nonoperational status, and that no other feedback is warranted (e.g., from the licensee), 

the action office may consider the option of closing the concern with no additional 

action. As an example, if an inspection was planned to observe system modification 

work in response to an allegation, but the system modification is cancelled because 

the system is not needed in the plant’s non-operational condition, it would be 

appropriate to close the concern by informing the alleger that no additional action by 

NRC is necessary. 

- Concern is dated and relevance to current (non-operational) activities is 

questionable. Using this reasoning to close an allegation concern with no additional 

action requires the informed judgment of responsible staff in the action office (e.g., 

How dated is the concern?, How irrelevant is the concern to current activities?). 

Closure documentation for the allegation in this instance must clearly explain NRC’s 

reason for closure with no additional action. As an example, if a concern was 

received from a former contractor about a work environment problem in a particular 

plant department 2 years ago, but that plant department has since been disbanded 

or undergone a substantial staff reduction as part of the plant’s transition to nonoperational status, responsible NRC staff might conclude that evaluating such a 

concern is unnecessary and not relevant to current activities at the plant. 

- Alleger did not provide sufficient detail to enable a focused NRC evaluation. (See 

Manual Section 3.2.r, “Allegations that are “Vague” or Lack Sufficient Detail to 

Enable NRC Evaluation.”) 

The options/examples noted in this Manual Section are not all-inclusive and are provided 

to support the action office’s case-by-case determination of necessary actions in 

response to remaining open allegation concerns after power reactor operations have 

permanently ceased. The informed judgment of responsible staff should be applied to 

all such recommendations and these recommendations should be discussed with the 

ARB chairman so that final decisions are confirmed and the bases for those decisions 

are documented. It is also acknowledged that subsequent to the termination of power 

operations, NRC may continue to receive allegations related to activities that occurred 

while the plant was in operational status. The considerations discussed above will also 

apply to such concerns. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

215

5.10 Alleger Response After Closure (RAC) 

5.10.a Alleger Feedback After Allegation 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. As appropriate, an 

NRC response should be provided to the alleger, normally within 30 days of receiving the 

alleger’s feedback, describing the actions taken by NRC in response. If it is anticipated that 

it will take longer than 30 days to respond to the alleger’s feedback, or if the alleger’s 

feedback includes a new allegation, an initial response should be provided to the alleger 

acknowledging the alleger’s feedback or the new allegation, and indicating that additional 

NRC feedback is forthcoming. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.M) 

While it is expected that the final NRC correspondence in response to an allegation-related 

RAC will be documented in writing, it is acceptable for the initial “30 day” response to the 

alleger (if it is not the final response) to be accomplished by electronic mail or via a 

documented telephone discussion. 

5.10.b AMS Documentation of Response After Closure and NRC Follow-Up

An action has been included in AMS entitled “Response After Closure” to enable the 

recording of efforts taken to respond to such alleger feedback. This AMS action should be 

used exclusively to record negative alleger feedback. Whenever, positive feedback is 

provided by allegers, it is acceptable to record such feedback in AMS, using an alternate 

AMS action item, such as “Letter from Alleger” or “Phone Call from Alleger.”

5.10.c Multiple Responses After Closure Regarding the Same Allegation/Concern 

On occasion, an alleger will submit multiple responses after closure regarding the same 

allegation/concern. Each such submittal should be considered by the ARB to determine if 

additional evaluation by NRC is appropriate. As indicated in Manual Section 5.10.a., if the 

information submitted by the alleger contains new or additional detail, the ARB should also 

consider whether to open a new allegation. The alleger may also occasionally request that 

his/her allegation concern receive an independent review by another NRC office. If the ARB 

determines that an independent review is appropriate, the review should be arranged. 

In the circumstance when no additional detail has been provided by the alleger in multiple 

responses after closure and the alleger continues to disagree with NRC’s conclusion(s), the 

ARB may discuss the development of final correspondence to the alleger. If all reasonable 

efforts have been made by the action office to re-evaluate the allegation/concern, including 

the consideration of NRC independent review, if it was requested, it is acceptable for the 

ARB to propose a final letter (or other means of correspondence) to the alleger indicating 

that NRC has completed its efforts in response to the allegation and that, unless new or 

additional detail can be provided by the alleger, no additional feedback will be provided by 

NRC regarding the allegation/concern-in-question. If the alleger has indicated that the 

NRC’s performance in responding to the allegation/concern represents misconduct, waste, 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

216

fraud or abuse, the correspondence should also indicate that the alleger may contact the 

NRC OIG. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

217

6.0 Freedom of Information Act Requests 

6.1 Allegation-Related FOIA Requests 

Upon receipt of a FOIA request, it is normal practice under the Privacy Act (PA) to protect from 

release, an alleger’s identity or alleger-identifying information unless mandated by the FOIA in 

some circumstances. (See Manual Sections 1.2 and 4.2.a). “Fingerprinting” information that 

may lead to identifying an alleger is also normally redacted when responding to a FOIA request. 

In cases involving non-discrimination issues in which 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 and subsequently notifying the alleger about 

the information release are discussed in Manual Section 4.2.f (See definition of “widely known 

alleger” in the Manual Glossary). (8.8 Handbook, Section II.Q.1) 

6.2 “Fingerprinting” Information

“Fingerprinting” information includes any piece or pieces of information which, separately or 

combined, may be analyzed and result in the identification of the alleger. Questions regarding 

whether specified information would fingerprint or has fingerprinted an alleger may be directed 

to an OAC, a regional/headquarters office FOIA coordinator, the AAA, regional counsel or a 

designated OGC attorney, or the FOIA Privacy, and Information Collections Branch in OIS (see 

Manual Exhibit 23). 

6.3 General Guidance for Responding to Allegation-Related FOIA Requests 

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 allegers. More specific guidance with regard to 

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 (alleger or third party), 

is provided in Sections 6.4 through 6.13 below and in Manual Exhibit 23. (8.8 Handbook, 

Section II.Q.2) 

6.4 OE Allegation-Related FOIA Response Reviews 

Management Directive 3.1, “Freedom of Information Act,” directs the AAA or his/her designee in 

OE to review and concur in all responses to FOIA requests involving allegation records. 

Through concurrence, the AAA certifies that the information to be disclosed from the record, or 

portion thereof, would not cause harm to an open allegation or disclose the identity of an alleger 

whose identity still warrants protection. This supplemental review by OE provides an 

independent look and quality check of the documents identified and reviewed by the regional 

and headquarters offices in response to allegation-related FOIA requests. Effort is made by OE 

to complete the review and provide the results to the FOIA Privacy, and Information Collections 

Branch in OIS within 5 working days, so as not to delay FOIA response times.

6.5 FOIA Exemptions Related to Withholding Alleger-Identifying Information 

The FOIA exemptions that may justify withholding information that would identify an alleger, 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

218

witness, or confidential source are 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(D). These FOIA 

exemptions are to be considered on a case-by-case basis by those responding to an allegationrelated FOIA request including the OAC, the Director of OI (for OI confidential sources), regional 

counsel or a designated attorney in OGC, a regional/headquarters office FOIA coordinator, OIS 

FOIA Privacy, and Information Collections Branch support personnel, or other designated 

individuals. FOIA Exemption 7(C) authorizes protection of records or information compiled for 

law enforcement purposes for which release could reasonably be expected to constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Allegers and witnesses who have standard allegation 

process identity protection or have been granted confidential source status are protected under 

FOIA Exemption 7(D). As such, NRC may withhold information that has the potential for 

causing the identity of these individuals to be revealed. 

6.6 Withholding Release of an Alleger’s Name in Response to a FOIA Related to an 

Overriding Safety Issue 

In cases in which the NRC has disclosed the name of an alleger to the licensee in furtherance of 

an investigation or because of an overriding safety issue, the NRC will continue to withhold the 

alleger's name from release pursuant to a FOIA request from another party, unless the alleger is 

already widely known in association with the allegation. The reason for withholding the alleger’s 

name in this instance is to protect the alleger from public scrutiny or criticism that might arise if 

the alleger’s identity was publicly revealed. 

6.7 FOIA Exemption 7(A) 

During review of an open allegation file, all documentation related to the allegation may be 

exempt from release under FOIA, in accordance with FOIA Exemption 7(A), when the release of 

information could reasonably be expected to interfere with potential or ongoing law enforcement 

proceedings. When an allegation is closed, its documentation may be subject to release under 

the FOIA, with appropriate redactions to protect the identity of the alleger and to avoid the 

release of other sensitive information. 

While Exemption 7(A) would apply in most circumstances if an allegation is still open, 

information can be released from an open allegation file in response to a FOIA request in some 

cases. 

Examples: 

 if a FOIA request is submitted after an OI investigation is completed and all subsequent

related actions, including enforcement, are also completed, and the only remaining action is

to develop allegation closure documentation, it would be difficult to assert in this

circumstance that the allegation was still open. (In this instance, every effort should be

made to issue the allegation closure documentation before the FOIA response

documentation is released.)

 as noted in Manual Section 5.9.f.2, an individual may be provided with a copy of the

transcript of his/her interview with OI in order to prepare for a preliminary enforcement

conference.

 as noted in Manual Section 5.9.f.3, when OI has completed its investigation of a

discrimination concern but the allegation file remains open because the matter remains
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

219

open with DOL, information about the results of the OI investigation is provided to both the 

alleger and the licensee in the form of an OI synopsis, and OI report factual summary, or a 

redacted copy of the OI report itself. The letters providing this information to the alleger and 

the licensee also inform both parties that the complete OI report may be requested under 

the FOIA, if desired. Subsequently, if the OI report is requested under FOIA by the alleger, 

or another party (including the licensee), even though the DOL case and related allegation 

file remain open, the OI report would normally be released, after review and appropriate 

redaction. 

The decision to release the OI report should be determined on a case-by-case basis, since 

FOIA Exemption 7(A) specifies that an open case can be withheld in its entirety if release of 

the information could inappropriately interfere with the efforts of any regulatory authority 

evaluating a particular concern, not just NRC. As an example, if OI concludes that a 

discrimination concern is unsubstantiated, but the matter remains open with DOL, it is 

possible that the release of the OI report could interfere with DOL’s evaluation. Since, in 

most instances of this type, the investigation stage of DOL’s review has already been 

completed (i.e., the concern is past the DOL/OSHA investigative stage and is with either 

DOL/ALJ or DOL/ARB), it is reasonable to assume that releasing the OI report will not 

impact subsequent DOL investigatory efforts. Notwithstanding, this aspect must be 

considered before making the decision to release the OI report. There is no requirement for 

NRC to notify DOL of its decision in this matter. 

6.8 Document Retention Requirements Applying to FOIA Exemption 7(A) 

When withholding the release of an entire allegation file under FOIA Exemption 7(A), the OAC 

may either provide the records to the FOIA contact in OIS with indication that they are to be 

withheld or retain the records and provide the FOIA contact with a 7(A) certification signed by 

two individuals (see Management Directive 3.1, “Freedom of Information Act,” for further 

information). If a 7(A) certification is used, the FOIA request will "freeze" the documents in the 

file for 6 years, i.e., the documents cannot be destroyed because they have been captured 

under a FOIA request. A copy of the 7(A) certification form should be placed in the allegation 

file as a reminder of the “document freeze.” In the absence of a 7(A) certification form, when an 

allegation file is closed, only those documents necessary to account for official action are 

required to be retained. 

6.9 Alleger FOIA Request for Documents from Closed Allegations Submitted by the 

Alleger 

When an alleger files a FOIA request seeking documents from closed allegation files that were 

submitted by him/her, much of the related allegation file may be released, unless the documents 

would identify a witness or affect the personal privacy of another individual, the documents were 

covered by attorney/client privilege, the document contains pre-decisional information, or the 

release of a particular document could reasonably be expected to harm an NRC investigation. 

Manual Exhibit 23 provides additional detail regarding information that may be 

withheld/redacted, and FOIA exemptions that may be applied depending on the affiliation of an 

individual identified in a document that has been captured under FOIA. If an alleger’s FOIA 

request captures an open allegation, the contents of the open allegation file may be withheld in 

whole or in part, under Exemption 7(A), 7(C) or 7(D). If an alleger files a FOIA request seeking 

the documents from his/her own open allegation file(s), the entire file may be withheld under 

Exemption 7(A) if disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

220

investigation or proceeding. However, anytime Exemption 7(A) is employed, each record or 

category of records must be considered for disclosure on a case-by-case basis. It is also noted 

that a FOIA request made by an alleger for information pertaining to himself/herself must be 

accompanied by written certification of the alleger’s identity (see MD 3.1, “Freedom of 

Information Act”). 

6.10 Third Party FOIA Request 

When a FOIA request is filed by a third party (i.e., the public, the licensee, licensee counsel, 

licensee employees, or the media), the agency will not release the name of the alleger or

fingerprinting information related to the alleger unless the alleger is widely known in association 

with the allegation. The third party will receive redacted versions of the documents protecting 

the name of the alleger or witnesses, if any, and any other information that might allow the 

requestor (or the public) to identify the alleger or witnesses. The staff will also redact 

information concerning other persons mentioned who have personal privacy interests, 

information covered by the attorney/client privilege, information that is pre-decisional, 

safeguards or proprietary information, or information that would interfere with an ongoing 

investigation. Manual Exhibit 23 provides additional detail regarding information that may be 

withheld/redacted, and FOIA exemptions that may be applied depending on the affiliation of an 

individual identified in a document that has been captured under FOIA. The third party will 

receive licensee and agency technical evaluations and the OI investigation synopsis. When a 

third party files a FOIA request seeking documents from an open allegation file, the entire file 

may be withheld if disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing 

investigation or proceeding. However, each record or category of records must be considered 

for disclosure on a case-by-case basis to determine whether Exemption 7(A) applies. If 

Exemption 7(A) does not apply, information that merits withholding under another exemption 

may be withheld (see Manual Section 6.7). 

6.11 Third Party FOIA Request for Allegations Submitted by a Specific Individual 

If a FOIA request is filed by a third party for allegations submitted to NRC by a specific 

individual, the requestor should be informed that the NRC cannot confirm or deny the existence 

of records subject to the request, because even denying the existence of records could provide 

information that the documents the FOIA requester is seeking indeed exist. This neitherconfirm-nor-deny response is occasionally referred to as a “Glomar response,” based on a legal 

case that established this precedent. If a Glomar response is employed, case law has 

demonstrated that it is unnecessary for responsible staff to provide estimates for efforts required 

to respond to the FOIA request. 

6.12 Use of AMS to Create Reports Responsive to FOIA Requests 

Both the AAA and the OACs are authorized to create special reports derived from the AMS 

database using Microsoft Access to be responsive to FOIA requests. For this reason, every 

effort should be made to ensure that data entered into AMS is current and accurate (see Manual 

Section 7.3.j). Reports prepared for the purpose of responding to FOIA requests must be 

suitably redacted to protect the identity of the alleger and any witnesses before being released. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

221

6.13 FOIA Response Reference Table 

A reference table providing guidance for the processing of FOIA requests after an OI 

investigation is closed and enforcement action is completed is provided in Manual Exhibit 23. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

222

7.0 Allegation Management System (AMS) 

7.1 AMS Description

The AMS is a computerized information system that contains a summary of significant data 

pertinent to each allegation. 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.

(8.8 Handbook, Section II.O.1) 

Allegations received by 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. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.O.2)

7.2 Access to AMS Database 

Because of the sensitive nature of the information in the AMS, access to the AMS database is 

normally limited to the AAA, OACs, other allegation support staff, and representatives of OIG. 

AMS reports are provided on a need-to-know basis for specified data. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.O.5)

Both the AAA and OACs are authorized to create special reports derived from the AMS 

database using Microsoft Access either to meet the needs of the NRC staff and management or 

to be responsive to FOIA requests. Reports prepared for the purpose of responding to FOIA 

requests must be suitably redacted to protect the identity of the alleger and/or other individuals 

who warrant protection before being released. 

7.3 AMS Data Entry and Usage Guidance 

Information related to the description and use of AMS is contained in the AMS Users Guide 

(ADAMS Accession # ML11319A172). The AMS Users Guide provides the AMS user with the 

information necessary to enter, maintain, retrieve, and report on allegations documented within 

the AMS, including examples of data entry screens, system messages, and report formats. The 

following items reflect other specific guidance to be followed regarding the entry of data into 

AMS: 

7.3.a Allegation Number 

A unique identifying number is established for each allegation when the OAC documents the 

allegation in the AMS database. Although the AMS database is not the official agency 

record, the OAC inputs pertinent information regarding each allegation into AMS upon 

allegation receipt, usually within 10 working days of receipt, and as the allegation is 

evaluated to facilitate the reporting of allegation status at periodic intervals to responsible 

staff. 

7.3.b Allegation Concern Entry Threshold 

All concerns submitted to NRC that meet the definition of an allegation as specified in the 

Manual Glossary shall be entered into AMS. Therefore, there is no threshold for the 

acceptance of an allegation concern with regard to level of detail, relationship to a specific 

NRC regulation, or risk/safety significance. These factors may affect the type and amount of 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

223

follow up activity that will be applied in response to the concern as determined by the ARB, 

but should not be used to screen an allegation out of the process. 

7.3.c Exclusion of Sensitive Information 

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 safeguards information (SGI) or any proprietary or commercial information (10 CFR 

2.390), and must not violate the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. (8.8 Handbook, Section 

II.O.3) While recognizing that SGI shall not be placed in AMS, an effort should be made to

briefly describe a security concern in AMS without divulging SGI. For example, rather than 

entering a non-descript item in the concern description section of AMS (such as “SGI 

information”), a very brief description such as “security staffing” or “access control” could be 

used to provide some indication of the nature of the concern. 

7.3.d Exclusion of Investigative Evidence 

AMS entries should not reveal information related to criminal or civil wrongdoing on the part 

of individuals and/or NRC licensees that could compromise NRC inspections and/or 

investigations concerning alleged events. (8.8 Handbook, Section II.O.4)

7.3.e Cross-Referencing 

If allegation concerns are raised that relate to other allegation concerns already in the AMS 

database, a cross-reference should be included in AMS entries for the new allegation 

concern that relate it to the existing allegation concern and vice versa. 

7.3.f Non-Allegations in AMS 

Generally, concerns submitted to the agency that do not meet the definition of an allegation 

should not be entered into the AMS database. However, if the action office prefers to enter 

such items into AMS to facilitate tracking of the feedback provided in response to these 

items, this is acceptable, provided the item is categorized in the AMS database as a ”nonallegation.” In fact, for an allegation with multiple concerns that contains a concern that 

does not fall under the allegation definition, including all of the concerns in AMS may provide 

for better administrative control of actions to be taken and feedback be provided by the 

action office. 

When a “non-allegation” concern is included in AMS, a description is to be provided as to 

why the item was determined not to be an allegation. The best approach is to describe the 

part or parts of the allegation definition that is/are not met (i.e., An assertion of impropriety or 

inadequacy?; Associated with NRC-regulated activity?; Answer known?). Simply indicating 

in AMS that...."The ARB determined that this was not an allegation.".... is not sufficient.

7.3.g OIG-Related Information 

A single concern involving NRC staff or contractor misconduct or mismanagement of agency 

programs that is being referred to OIG should not be entered into the AMS database. 

However, if an allegation with multiple concerns also contains a concern involving referral to 

OIG, for better administrative control of actions to be taken and feedback to be provided by 

the action office to the alleger, it is acceptable to include in AMS as a placeholder, a non-
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

224

descript concern, categorized as a ”non-allegation,” called “OIG Item.” No specific 

information about the OIG item is to be entered into AMS. This serves as a reminder to the 

OAC to provide feedback to the alleger, via the acknowledgment letter or other agreed upon 

means of correspondence, regarding how to get information about the disposition of the OIG 

item, including the provision of contact information for OIG. 

7.3.h Exclusion of Law Enforcement Information 

Information related to referrals to the DOJ, law enforcement, and military agencies and 

organizations should not be entered into AMS unless the referral relates to the organization 

in its capacity as an NRC licensee (as examples, the Navy and Air Force hold NRC 

materials licenses). 

7.3.i Consistency of Concern Description and Basis for Closure Information 

The description of concerns and the basis for closure contained in the AMS should be 

consistent with the information related to those concerns that is contained in the 

acknowledgment and closure letters to the alleger. 

7.3.j Timeliness of AMS Data Entry 

Since AMS data is subject to requests under FOIA, every effort should be made to ensure 

that the data in AMS is current and accurate. As an example, a conclusion regarding the 

substantiation of an allegation concern should not be entered into AMS until the concern is 

formally closed. Since a FOIA request captures data at the moment the request is 

accepted, any preliminary information entered into AMS regarding the validity of a particular 

concern would also be captured, and if released, could be misinterpreted by the FOIA 

requestor as the NRC presuming the outcome of the evaluation of an allegation concern. 

7.3.k Allegations Affecting Multiple Offices 

For allegations that require action by multiple regional and/or headquarters offices, the 

involved OACs should attempt to agree on a lead action office for allegation follow up, if 

possible, allowing for the entry of only one allegation into AMS. However, if such an 

approach makes administrative handling difficult, the opening of multiple allegation files may 

be considered. 

7.3.l Entry of OI Case Number 

For wrongdoing or discrimination allegation concerns that prompt investigation by OI, the 

case number assigned by OI should be entered into AMS as a cross-reference. 

7.3.m Entry of EA or IA Number 

For allegation concerns that result in enforcement action that is assigned an Enforcement 

Action (EA) or Individual Action (IA) number, the EA or IA number should be entered in to 

AMS as a cross-reference. 

7.3.n Status of Allegations with Open DOL Cases 

For open DOL cases related to discrimination concerns, if NRC review/investigation has 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

225

found the discrimination concern to be unsubstantiated, or for substantiated cases, when 

NRC decides to await completion of the DOL process before considering enforcement 

action, the allegation file should be kept open in AMS while the DOL case remains open. 

This permits NRC evaluation of subsequent decisions resulting from the DOL process to 

determine if these decisions will affect the existing NRC conclusion that is based on the 

results of the OI investigation. However, if a discrimination concern has already been 

resolved via Early ADR, the outcome of a related DOL proceeding will not affect NRC’s 

conclusion. The action office may leave the allegation file open awaiting the final DOL 

action; however, additional correspondence with the alleger regarding the discrimination 

concern is unnecessary since NRC’s conclusion will not change. If the action office chooses 

to leave the allegation file open and continue corresponding with the alleger while the 

discrimination matter remains in the DOL process, the correspondence shall provide no 

indication that NRC’s conclusion regarding the discrimination concern could change as a 

result of a positive DOL finding. It is also acceptable for the action office to consider closing 

the discrimination concern, even if the related DOL proceeding has not been completed. 

Notwithstanding the above, if a subsequent DOL decision concludes that the alleger was 

discriminated against, Part II, Section 1.3.17 of the Enforcement Manual indicates that NRC 

would consider issuing a letter requesting the licensee to describe SCWE impacts resulting 

from the DOL finding of discrimination. For this reason, if the action office chooses to close 

the allegation file before the final DOL action because the discrimination concern was 

settled via Early ADR, a new “non-allegation” shall be opened in AMS to track the ongoing 

DOL proceeding. The non-allegation will not have an associated alleger, or require 

additional correspondence with original alleger. It will be a placeholder to track the status of 

the DOL case. If DOL ultimately closes the case as unsubstantiated, the non-allegation 

would be closed by the OAC with no further action. If DOL concludes that discrimination 

occurred, appropriate staff will be informed so that actions can be initiated (ARB or 

enforcement panel) to discuss the possible issuance of a letter requesting the licensee to 

describe SCWE impacts resulting from the DOL finding of discrimination. 

7.3.o AMS Entries Related to Early ADR 

For discrimination allegations involving Early ADR, the OAC will enter an action of “ADR 

Offered” into AMS at the time an acknowledgment letter is sent to an alleger extending an 

offer to enter into the Early ADR process. The start date on this action will be the date of the 

acknowledgment letter and the planned completion date should be 10 calendar days after 

the acknowledgment letter is issued. The OAC will also select “ADR” under the OI action 

field at the allegation and concern levels of AMS. The OE ADR Program Manager will 

provide the OAC with a copy of the signed agreement to mediate as documentation that the 

alleger has entered into Early ADR with the licensee. Once the alleger enters into Early 

ADR with the licensee, the “ADR Offered” action in AMS will be closed, an action of “ADR 

Alleger” will be entered into AMS, and the allegation is exempted from the allegation 

timeliness metrics. A planned completion date of 90 calendar days from the date the alleger 

entered into Early ADR will be entered into AMS under this action so that the OAC can track 

the date when settlement is expected. Given an acceptable agreement, the OAC can issue 

a closure letter to the alleger and then close the allegation in AMS. For concerns settled via 

Early ADR that are deemed acceptable by NRC, the concern should be coded as Not 

Applicable (N/A) vs. “substantiated’ or “unsubstantiated” in AMS. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

226

7.3.p ERA Section 211 Information Entry 

For discrimination concerns, the “Section 211 Violation” input at the Allegation Level of AMS 

should be checked “Yes,” and the “Violation Sect. 211” block should be checked at the 

Concern Level of AMS for the specific concern or concerns that involve an assertion of 

discrimination for engagement in protected activity. At the AMS Concern Level, select the 

“Discipline” related to the discrimination concern vs. inputting “Discrimination” in the Concern 

Level “Discipline” block. For example, if a control room operator submits a discrimination 

concern against Operations department management, at the AMS Concern Level, the 

“Violation Sect. 211” block should be checked, and “Operations” should be highlighted in the 

“Discipline” block. There will be some instances when it is difficult to categorize a specific 

functional discipline related to the discrimination issue. In those instances it is acceptable to 

select "Discrimination" in the Concern Level “Discipline” block.

7.3.q Third Party Discrimination Concerns 

For tracking purposes, although NRC does not normally investigate third-party allegations of 

discrimination, such concerns are to be entered into the AMS database as assertions of 

discrimination under ERA Section 211. A selection of "Third Party" is provided in the 

"Violation Sect. 211" blocks at both the Allegation and Concern levels of AMS. Should the 

alleger indicate that because of the perceived discrimination against the other individual, 

he/she or a group of individuals are now afraid to raise safety concerns, a separate concern 

should be entered into AMS with the Concern Discipline coded as “Chilling Effect." The 

chilling effect/chilled work environment concern should be considered by the ARB separate 

from the third-party discrimination assertion. 

7.3.r Inadequate Licensee RFI Response 

Staff actions taken to address the inadequacy of a licensee’s response to an RFI should be 

documented in the allegation file and in AMS. An action entry entitled “Inadequate Licensee 

RFI Response” has been included in the AMS database for this purpose. The AMS 

description field for this action should indicate the inadequacy and specific additional actions 

taken by the staff (a non-descript statement such as... “The ARB determined that the 

licensee’s RFI response was inadequate”... is not sufficient). This will allow for a more 

informative data search regarding the adequacy of licensee responses to prior RFIs when 

evaluating the appropriateness of using an RFI for future allegations. 

7.3.s Response After Closure 

An action has been included in AMS entitled “Response After Closure” to enable the 

recording of efforts taken to respond to negative alleger feedback. It is acceptable to record 

positive feedback provided by allegers, using an alternate AMS action item, such as “Letter 

from Alleger” or “Phone Call from Alleger.”

7.3.t. Identifying Means of Correspondence 

If the method of NRC response requested by the alleger is other than written 

correspondence, AMS entries for the Acknowledgement Letter, Status Letters, and the 

Closure Letter should clarify the means of correspondence. For example, the 

Acknowledgement Letter Action text could read, “Acknowledgment Letter provided via email, as requested by alleger.”
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

227

7.3.u Contractor, Subcontractor, or Vendor Involved in Discrimination Concern 

If an allegation includes a discrimination concern that involves a contractor, subcontractor or 

vendor, the related licensee is recorded in AMS as the primary Facility. The contractor, 

subcontractor or vendor involved in the alleged discrimination matter should also be 

included in AMS as an associated Facility (if it has an NRC license), or as an associated 

Outside Organization. 

7.3.v. Agreement State Concerns 

If an individual providing an Agreement State licensee concern agrees to contact and be 

contacted directly by Agreement State personnel about the evaluation of his/her concern(s), 

such matters are provided to the appropriate RSAO for referral to the Agreement State and 

are not processed as allegations. If such an item has already been entered into AMS, the 

entry shall be coded as a "Non-Allegation" at the AMS Allegation Level, and individual 

concerns shall be coded as "Agreement State" at the AMS Concern Level. 

7.3.w Awareness of Auto-Fill Function when Adding New Concern 

When a new concern is added within an allegation, AMS fills the new concern with data from 

the previous concern to facilitate data entry. Be mindful of this when adding new concerns 

and assure that incorrect data is removed or changed. As an example, if Concern 1 of an 

allegation is a discrimination concern with the Section 211 block checked, the Section 211 

block will be checked for the next concern added. If the new concern is not a discrimination 

concern, inaccurate data entry will result. 

7.3.x Prima Facie Information 

The AMS Concern Level includes a data input item for the prima facie determination related 

to a discrimination concern. This item should be entered into AMS after Regional Counsel 

(for regional allegations) or OGC (for headquarters allegations) has made the prima facie 

determination. 

7.4 AMS Database Maintenance, Monitoring, and Security 

7.4.a Service Level Agreement Between OE and OIS 

A Service Level Agreement (SLA) is maintained between OE and OIS regarding the 

oversight, monitoring, and security of the AMS database. Since OE does not maintain staff 

knowledgeable in the information technology aspects of database administration and 

security, OIS performs the large majority of these tasks through the SLA. 

AMS resides on the Business Application Support System (BASS) operated by the OIS 

Business Process Improvement and Applications Division. BASS provides a consolidated 

UNIX environment with centralized services for operating systems and database 

administration for several NRC system applications, including AMS. Through the SLA, 

these applications can rely on BASS for hardware, operating system, database server, and 

application server protection. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

228

7.4.b System Owner Responsibilities Related to AMS Database Oversight 

OE, as the AMS System Owner, has responsibilities related to monitoring staff access to 

AMS data, reporting database problems to OIS, and responding to OIS requests related to 

system administration, oversight, testing, and security assessment. These areas are 

discussed below. Additionally, as needed, OE allegation program staff may add data fields 

to the AMS database if it is determined that the agency requires such data to be gathered 

for future evaluation. OE allegation program staff may also provide training to agency 

allegation coordination staff regarding changes to database administration and/or function 

(support from OIS may be solicited by OE for such efforts). 

7.4.b.1 System Access Level Monitoring 

Since initial sign-on to AMS is authenticated via network LAN user identification, an 

agency-wide level of system access security is provided in that manner. Regarding 

individual staff member access to AMS, OE allegation program staff evaluate staff 

access to AMS data approximately every 4 months. To perform this task, OE queries 

the database with regard to those NRC staff members who have been granted 

Administrator or Coordinator access. Since the Administrator and Coordinator access 

levels can manipulate data within the database, it is important to assure that only 

appropriate staff are granted these levels of access. After obtaining the data with regard 

to NRC staff members with Administrator or Coordinator level access to the database, 

the allegation program staff in OE assess whether the access levels have been assigned 

appropriately. Any questions are directed to allegation coordination staff in the regional 

or headquarters offices to verify whether an individual should or should not be assigned 

a particular level of database access, using the "least privilege" approach, i.e., staff 

members assigned an access level in the AMS database should be assigned the lowest 

possible access level, as appropriate. After obtaining feedback from the regional and/or 

headquarters allegation program staff, OE modifies the assigned access levels in AMS 

accordingly. With regard to Read-Only access to the AMS database, the individual 

regional and headquarters offices decide which staff members require this level of 

access. 

7.4.b.2 System Problems/Warnings 

Any problems/warnings experienced regarding the use of the AMS database are 

reported to OIS for evaluation and response. Normally, allegation program coordination 

staff report system problems/warnings to allegation program staff in OE, who forward the 

issue to OIS for evaluation. However, it is acceptable for allegation coordination staff to 

forward AMS system problems/warnings directly to OIS, provided allegation program 

staff in OE are also informed about the indicated problem/warning. Problems may be 

reported to OIS at the following e-mail address: AMSHelp.Resource@nrc.gov. 

Conversely, OIS will notify OE allegation program staff regarding problems identified 

with the function of the database, and when it is required to take the AMS database outof-service for maintenance or evaluation of such problems. OE allegation program staff 

subsequently notify agency allegation coordination staff in the regions and headquarters 

offices with regard to the problems identified by OIS and/or the period of time within 

which the database will be taken out of service. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

229

7.4.b.3 OIS Requests Related to System Administration, Oversight, Testing, 

And Security Assessment 

Periodically, OIS will request a system owner (OE for AMS) to review documentation 

related to database oversight and monitoring (e.g., security audit, system logs) to verify 

that requirements related to database oversight and security are being met. OE will 

review the documentation and provide feedback to OIS, as requested. Because OE 

may not be familiar with all of the information technology aspects of such requests, OE 

may request support from OIS to help understand the nature of the request, and the 

expectations for OE feedback. Documentation provided to OE by OIS regarding 

database oversight and monitoring should be retained by OE for future reference (OIS 

will designate retention requirements for such documentation). 

OIS conducts periodic contingency tests to determine whether the AMS database can be 

quickly brought back into service after an event that disables the system. OE allegation 

program staff participate in these tests from the perspective of confirming that the 

system has been taken down, and subsequently determining that the system has been 

successfully restored to service. 

Regarding database security, the CSO conducts quarterly scans and an annual security 

assessment. CSO discusses any anomalies identified as a result of these efforts with 

OIS. Problems requiring resolution may be formalized into a Plan of Action and 

Milestone (POA&M). A POA&M identifies tasks to be accomplished in support of 

Certification and Accreditation (C&A). It details resources required to accomplish the 

elements of the C&A, any milestones-dates in meeting the tasks, and scheduled 

completion dates for the tasks. The purpose of a POA&M is to identify, assess, prioritize, 

and monitor the progress of corrective efforts for security weaknesses found in programs 

and systems. OIS will discuss any POA&M identified as a result of CSO security 

assessment with OE, as the resolution of a POA&M is the responsibility of the System 

Owner. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

230

8.0 Allegation Program Oversight 

8.1 Biennial Allegation Program Assessments 

8.1.a Assessment Requirement 

As specified in MD 8.8 Section III.K.9, the AAA performs a biennial assessment of allegation 

activities conducted by each regional office and specified headquarters offices. For the 

purposes of the allegation program, OI, OE, OGC, and OIG are not considered action 

offices, and are not subject to biennial allegation program assessment. 

8.1.b Assessment Team 

The assessments are conducted by a team of individuals, including allegation program 

oversight staff from OE and one or more OACs from an alternate regional or headquarters 

office. 

8.1.c Areas Reviewed During the Allegation Program Assessment 

The allegation program assessment is conducted against the requirements of MD 8.8, 

“Management of Allegations,” any AGMs issued since the previous revision of MD 8.8, and 

the Allegation Manual. The biennial assessment includes a review of a 10% sample of the 

allegation files closed (minimum of 2 files) during the previous calendar year, along with an 

assessment of performance against established program goals, allegation review boards, 

resolution of alleger responses after case closure, allegation status tracking, and other focus 

areas, as deemed appropriate. Since the number of files reviewed is a relatively small 

percentage of the total number of files closed in the previous calendar year, a “smart” 

sample is chosen to assure that some files are of a more complex nature (e.g., files 

involving multiple concerns, wrongdoing, discrimination, Early ADR, etc.), and that the 

sample involves different facilities and concern types, and allegations closed throughout the 

year. This assures that a broader spectrum of program attributes will be looked at as part of 

the file review. 

As requested, the assessment team will look at a small sample of open files, and offer 

suggestions on completed actions. These suggestions will be offered in an advisory 

capacity and are not documented in the assessment team report. The region/program office 

will be provided an opportunity to recommend specific open allegation files for the 

assessment team to review. 

The assessment team will provide feedback on ARB quality through its review of 

documented ARB decision records as part of the allegation file reviews conducted during 

the assessment rather than through comments related to the observation of any ARB 

meeting conducted during the assessment (since allegations that are the subject of ARBs 

conducted during the assessment are not part of the closed allegation population being 

evaluated by the assessment team). However, if an ARB is conducted while the 

assessment team is onsite, the assessment team may choose to attend the ARB. The 

assessment team will participate in and offer comments during such ARBs, and will provide 

advice as requested by ARB participants. 

Additional discussion of review areas focused upon by the allegation program assessment 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

231

team is provided in the following: 

8.1.c.1 Capture of and Response to Alleger Concerns 

A significant goal of the NRC Allegation Program is the appropriate capture of and 

response to alleger concerns. For the closed allegation file reviews, all file 

documentation that may contain an alleger’s concern is reviewed (i.e., correspondence 

from the alleger, supporting information provided by the alleger, records of telephone 

conversations with the alleger, transcripts/summaries of OI or other staff interviews with 

the alleger, and DOL process correspondence, if applicable) to determine if all of the 

alleger’s concerns were captured. For any concerns captured subsequent to initial 

allegation receipt, the assessment evaluates whether these concerns were promptly 

processed. The basis for closure for each allegation concern reviewed is assessed for 

completeness and accuracy, and availability within the allegation file. 

Acknowledgment letters and other file correspondence are reviewed to assure that the 

identified concerns are properly characterized. Concerns identified after initial allegation 

receipt should also have been acknowledged with the alleger (it is understood that in 

some cases, such a concern can be acknowledged and resolved in a status or closure 

letter, or reviewed and acknowledged via another allegation file). Correspondence to the 

alleger is also reviewed to determine whether pertinent allegation process guidance is 

appropriately described (e.g., Early ADR guidance, DOL guidance, sensitivity of securityrelated concerns, licensee RFI information). Closure letters are reviewed to assure that 

the alleger has been informed in sufficient detail of the NRC determination regarding 

each concern, including a conclusion as to the validity of the concern. For securityrelated concerns, since current NRC policy may result in the provision of limited 

information to an alleger regarding the staff’s review and conclusions, the allegation file 

should contain sufficient detail to demonstrate that the concern was evaluated and 

resolved. 

The assessment also provides commentary regarding any significant issues/problems 

identified by the region or headquarters office during the course of the assessed 

calendar year related to the area of allegation concern identification and resolution, 

including a discussion of how the issue(s) was/were remedied and any lessons learned 

that were developed as a result. 

8.1.c.2 Alleger Identity Protection 

Another significant goal of the NRC Allegation Program is the protection of alleger 

identity. The assessment provides general commentary regarding process identity 

protection and if appropriate, will include discussion regarding any significant 

issues/problems related to alleger identity protection occurring during the course of the 

assessed calendar year, including how the issue(s) was/were remedied and any lessons 

learned that were developed as a result. 

8.1.c.3 Process Timeliness Goals 

Several critical timeliness metrics apply to the implementation of the NRC Allegation 

Program. For the calendar year evaluated, the assessment documents how the regional

or headquarters office performed with regard to the specific process metrics indicated 

below: 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

232

o ARBs - All initial ARBs are to be held within 30 days of receipt of the allegation by

the action office. For any concerns captured subsequent to initial allegation receipt,

the assessment evaluates whether these concerns were taken to an ARB within 30

days of when the additional concern was received.

o Acknowledgment Letters - For allegations with allegers whose identity is known, 90%

of acknowledgment letters are to be issued within 30 days and 100% within 45 days

of allegation receipt. It is recognized that in some instances, allegers do not provide

sufficient information during allegation receipt to permit future contact, or specifically

request that the NRC not provide correspondence to them regarding their concerns.

In these instances, the reason(s) for not providing an acknowledgment letter (or

other process correspondence) to the alleger should be clearly documented in the

allegation file.

o Allegation File Closure - For allegations that do not rely on an evaluation by other

government agencies (e.g., DOL, FEMA, Agreement State), or do not involve an

Early ADR mediation or an NRC OI investigation of alleged wrongdoing or

discrimination or an OI Assist to Staff, the agency goal is to close 90% of these

allegations within 150 days, 95% within 180 days, and 100% within 360 days. As is

implied by the goals themselves, it is recognized that allegation file closure times will

occasionally extend beyond the goal due to the specific circumstances and

complexities involved. [See Manual Section 8.1.c.6 below for discussion of closure

timeless expectations for allegation files that are not covered by the allegation

closure timeliness metrics.]

The assessment report discusses how the region or headquarters office performed with 

regard to the specific process metrics indicated above for the calendar year evaluated. 

Any significant discrepancies (e.g., missed initial ARB or acknowledgment letter, 

technical allegation closure >360 days) identified during the assessment file review or 

other review conducted by the region or headquarters office during the course of the 

assessed calendar year is discussed in more detail, including a discussion of how the 

issue(s) was/were ultimately remedied and any lessons learned that were developed. 

8.1.c.4 ARB Quality 

A general assessment of ARB quality provides commentary regarding the overall 

efficiency and effectiveness of ARBs conducted at the regional or headquarters office. 

This includes an assessment of the quality of ARB documentation/minutes (e.g., Is the 

allegation concern accurately described?, Are assigned actions and expectations for 

concern evaluation clear?, Is sufficient discussion provided for taking (or not taking) 

certain actions?). Input for such an assessment can be accomplished through ARB 

documentation review and interviews with ARB participants. Expectations/program 

guidelines for ARB conduct and documentation are denoted in MD 8.8 and this Manual. 

8.1.c.5 Response After Closure 

Following a review of the survey results received from allegers from 2000 to 2002 

regarding their satisfaction with the NRC allegation process, the AAA prepared a 

Commission Paper with a recommendation that the surveys be discontinued, due to a 

lack of meaningful response. While the Commission agreed to discontinue the surveys, 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

233

the staff was directed (in the SRM for SECY-02-0163) to monitor other feedback 

provided by allegers during the course of normal process implementation about the 

adequacy of NRC closure of their concern(s) via the allegation process, to determine if 

process modifications may be necessary. A negative response from an alleger in 

response to allegation closure is documented in AMS as a “Response After Closure.” 

The allegation program assessment reviews all Responses After Closure provided 

during the assessed calendar year to evaluate the adequacy of the follow-up NRC 

response, and to offer comments, if necessary, as to whether any process modifications 

may be needed based on the alleger feedback. When obtaining the list of RACs to be 

reviewed for the assessment, all RACs responded to in the assessed calendar year are 

captured, including RAC responses related to allegations closed in prior years, and 

concern-related RACs for allegations that are not yet closed. 

The assessment provides commentary with regard to any significant issues/problems 

identified by the region or headquarters office during the course of the assessed 

calendar year related to a Response After Closure, including a discussion of how the 

issue(s) was/were remedied and any lessons learned that were developed as result. 

8.1.c.6 Closure Timeliness Expectations Related to Allegation Files Not 

Under the Metrics 

8.1.c.6(a) Timeliness of Closure of Technical Concerns Not Under the 

Metric 

A number of allegation files that are excluded from the allegation file closure 

timeliness metrics include additional technical concerns that would otherwise be 

covered by the metrics. Even though the metrics do not apply to these additional 

technical concerns, it is expected that every effort will be made to evaluate and close 

them within the approximate time frames outlined by the closure timeliness metrics. 

If during a program assessment, a determination is made that efforts were not taken 

to evaluate and close such concerns in as timely a manner as appropriate, the 

assessment team would view this as a negative observation. 

8.1.c.6(b) Timeliness of Allegation File Closure after OI Investigation 

Closure 

Manual Sections 5.9.f.1 and 5.9.f.2 describe actions to be taken to close an 

allegation file after closure of a related OI investigation. The amount of time required 

to close the allegation file after closure of the OI investigation will vary based on 

specific circumstances, on whether other concerns within the allegation remain open, 

and on whether or not enforcement action is being pursued. The general 

expectation is that the action office will close the allegation file in as timely a manner 

as appropriate, considering these contributing factors. If in the judgment of the 

assessment team, it is determined that there was an excessive delay in closing the 

allegation file after all of the actions related to the related OI investigation were 

completed, a negative observation may be identified by the assessment team. 

8.1.d Assessment Checklist 

A checklist to support performance of the allegation program assessments is included in 

Manual Exhibit 24. The checklist is intended for use by the members of the assessment 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

234

team, but may also be used by regional and headquarters office allegation coordination staff 

on a routine basis for self-assessment purposes, including reviews aimed at assessing the 

completeness of individual allegation files upon closure. 

The checklist consists of two sections. The first section addresses general allegation 

program controls/administration. The second section addresses individual allegation file 

completeness. The checklist also provides references to some aspects of the allegation 

program that are not routinely evaluated during an allegation program assessment (e.g., 

allegation training, regional/office implementation procedures, charging time to allegation 

activity). 

8.1.e Allegation Program Assessment Categorization 

The biennial assessment describes overall program performance by indicating whether 

established program performance goals (indicated below) were met/exceeded, and by 

indicating whether any findings of significance were identified during the assessment. As 

appropriate, additional commentary will be provided as to whether performance has 

improved, is being sustained, or is declining; whether there are any apparent program 

weaknesses and/or strengths; and program efficiency and effectiveness. 

As examples: - a clean assessment would be categorized as....“Met/exceeded all 

program goals, no findings of significance.” 

- a lower assessment categorization might be....“Met/exceeded all 

program goals with one exception, limited findings of significance .” 

- a more negative categorization might be....” Met/exceeded some 

program goals, missed more than one program goal, several findings of 

significance.”

"Limited" findings of significance will be defined as 3 or less, and "several" as more than 3. 

“Findings of significance” are described in further detail in Manual Section 8.1.f below. 

8.1.f Allegation Program Performance Goals 

Identity Protection Goal: No inappropriate releases of alleger identity or 

information that could otherwise compromise an 

alleger’s identity

Response Quality Goal: Appropriate capture of and response to concerns 

provided by the alleger for the files reviewed during 

the assessment 

Timeliness Goal: Hold all initial ARBs within 30 days 

Goal: Acknowledgment letters - 90% in 30 days, 100% in 

45 days 

Goal: Closure (non-OI, DOL, ADR, FEMA, Agreement 

State) - 90% in 150 days, 95% in 180 days, 100% 

in 360 days 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

235

Response After Closure Goal: Appropriate response - i.e., any new information is 

evaluated and appropriately responded to, or if no 

additional NRC action is warranted, proper 

rationale is provided. If appropriate, a new 

allegation is opened. 

 ARB Quality Goal: Effective conduct, i.e., proper attendance, program 

guidance applied, thorough decision documentation 

8.1.g Definition of an Allegation Program Assessment Finding of Significance 

For consistency, and in an effort to clarify what types of assessment findings would be 

considered more significant than others (and would be highlighted during the assessment 

exit meeting), the following list describes items that would be considered “findings of 

significance”: 

- inadvertently releasing an alleger's identity or inappropriate release/disclosure of 

allegation-related information in a manner that could compromise the alleger's identity or 

the NRC's evaluation of the issue 

- not identifying an alleger's concern, or identifying one very late in processing, making 

response very untimely 

- responding inadequately or inappropriately to an alleger's concern. [Examples would be 

situations where the original response had to be revised without receiving any new 

information from the alleger, where the closure narrative does not support the 

conclusion, or where the scope and depth of the evaluation was not adequate.] 

- missing the 45-day deadline for an acknowledgment letter or sending no 

acknowledgment letter at all 

- having an initial ARB at > 30 days [The significance of such a finding depends on how 

late the initial ARB actually occurred and how it was compensated for, i.e., if held shortly 

after day 30, it is less difficult to make up for time lost, than if the initial ARB is held 

considerably later.] 

- taking more than 360 days to close a technical allegation, where the delay could have 

been avoided with better administrative control and tracking and/or better response by 

assigned technical staff 

For clarification, these refer to distinct findings that would be identified during the specific 

allegation file reviews, or during the review of pertinent AMS data in preparation for the 

assessment. As indicated above, a broader summary with regard to overall program 

performance and performance against process goals will be provided to 

region/headquarters office management at the assessment exit meeting. A “finding of 

significance” will affect the conclusion as to whether program goals have been met in some 

(but not all) cases. [For example: the release of an alleger’s identity would result in a 

conclusion that the Identity Protection goal was not met. However, if several 

acknowledgment letters were issued in >30 days, but <45 days from allegation receipt, the 

Acknowledgement Letter timeliness goal would be met as long as 90% or more of the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

236

acknowledgment letters were issued in 30 days or less.] Also, while the above list 

represents an effort to highlight “findings of significance,” it is not intended to be exclusive of 

all other potentially significant findings. That is, if another finding, not specifically identified 

in the above list, is identified during course of an allegation program assessment that 

produces a substantive negative impact on the program, such a finding may also be 

considered “significant.” The assessment team will consider giving credit for actions taken 

by the region or headquarters office in response to a finding of significance, if the region or 

headquarters office self-identified the item, took prompt and appropriate corrective action 

once identified, and took actions in an effort to prevent recurrence. Comments by the 

assessment team on other issues not considered to be “findings of significance” will be 

referred to as “observations.” 

8.1.h Assessment Report 

After the assessment, a summary report will be developed. As indicated in Manual Section 

8.1.e, the assessment team report will describe overall program performance by indicating 

whether established program performance goals were met/exceeded, and by indicating 

whether any findings of significance were identified during the assessment. As appropriate, 

additional commentary will be provided as to whether performance has improved, is being 

sustained, or is declining; whether there are any apparent program weaknesses and/or 

strengths; and program efficiency and effectiveness. The assessment team will include the 

discussion of significant findings and observations representing a theme in the body of the 

assessment team report. An “observation theme” refers to an item of lesser significance 

that is observed by the assessment team on multiple occasions (3 or more) within the 

allegations files reviewed. The regional or headquarters office will be provided with an 

opportunity to review and comment on a draft of the assessment team report before it is 

issued in final form. The regional or headquarters office will not be requested to concur in 

the draft report, but rather will be offered an opportunity to provide comments and identify 

inaccuracies. The assessment team report will include references to MD 8.8 and AGMs as 

appropriate so that the basis for a significant finding or observation theme is clear. 

Isolated observations and comments from the assessment team reviews will not be 

discussed in the assessment team report but rather will be collated for discussion in an OAC 

counterpart setting. The isolated observations and comments from the assessment team 

reviews will be provided to the OAC at the conclusion of the assessment for information and 

use as deemed appropriate. 

Given the lower significance of isolated observations and comments and the fact that these 

items will have already been discussed with regional or headquarters office allegation 

coordination staff during the assessment, these items will normally not be discussed during 

the assessment exit meeting. However, as deemed appropriate or as requested by the 

regional or headquarters office receiving the assessment, such items may be discussed at 

the exit meeting. 

If performance goals were missed and/or significant findings were identified, the regional or 

headquarters office will be asked to provide a response to the AAA describing how specific 

problems were resolved and what actions have been proposed or were taken in an effort to 

preclude recurrence, unless sufficient response was provided to the assessment team 

during the on-site review. It is also possible, on a case-by-case basis, that a region or 

headquarters office may be asked to respond to an observation theme or an observation 

that was not considered to be a finding of significance, if the assessment team and/or the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

237

AAA feel that such a response would be helpful to other regional or headquarters offices or 

would provide important insight to program performance. 

8.2 Allegation Program Self-Assessments 

From 1996 to 2005, the AAA performed an annual assessment of allegation activities conducted 

by each regional office and specified headquarters offices. In February 2006, the AAA 

announced that these assessments would be conducted biennially. The assessment frequency 

was reduced in recognition of the results of allegation program implementation assessments 

conducted in prior years, which indicated that the regional and headquarters offices consistently 

met or exceeded the performance and quality requirements denoted in MD 8.8. During the 

years in which a regional/headquarters office assessment is not conducted by the AAA, the 

office or region shall conduct a self-assessment and submit the results of that self-assessment 

to the AAA for review. This section provides general guidance for conducting the selfassessment. 

8.2.a Self-Assessment Activities 

It is recognized that the regional/headquarters office allegation programs already include 

inherent continuing self-assessment through several means, for example, metrics 

monitoring, periodic status assessment of open allegation files, quality reviews of closed 

allegation files, lessons-learned documentation related to identified problems, selected selfassessments of certain program functions, etc. These continuing regional/headquarters 

office assessment efforts are encouraged and are not intended to be replaced by the selfassessment guidance contained in this Manual Section. Credit for these continuing selfassessment activities can and should be taken in the regional or headquarters office selfassessment report provided to the AAA. In addition, it is suggested that the selfassessment include complete file reviews (similar to those performed during the AAA 

biennial program assessment) of a small sample of allegation files closed in the previous 

calendar year (at least 5% (minimum of 2 files)) to assess the general implementation of 

program guidance, e.g., capturing concerns, adequacy of response to concerns, protecting 

alleger identity, meeting process timeliness guidance, ARB quality, allegation file 

completeness, implementation of Early ADR guidance (if applicable), etc. As discussed in 

Manual Section 8.1.c, a “smart” sample should be chosen to assure that a broader spectrum 

of program attributes will be looked at as part of the file review. The file reviews shall be 

performed by an individual knowledgeable of allegation program requirements and 

independent of the program and files under review, e.g., an allegation coordinator from 

another office or region, or a manager or senior staff member not responsible for program 

implementation or involved in the resolution of any of the specific allegation files selected for 

review. 

8.2.b Self-Assessment Guidelines 

By way of the self-assessment file reviews and other internal assessment activities 

accomplished over the previous calendar year, the region or headquarters office performing 

the self-assessment shall provide general commentary and assessment with regard to the 

program areas noted in Manual Sections 8.1.c.1 through 8.1.c.5. A checklist has been 

provided (see Manual Exhibit 24) to assist in the performance of allegation file review as 

part of the self-assessment. 

Regarding the RAC review, it is emphasized that the self-assessment shall review all RACs 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

238

responded to during the assessed calendar year to evaluate the adequacy of the follow-up 

NRC response, and to offer comments, if necessary, as to whether any process 

modifications may be needed based on the alleger feedback. When obtaining the list of 

RACs to be reviewed for the self-assessment, assure that all RACs responded to in the 

assessed calendar year are captured, including RAC responses related to allegations 

closed in prior years, and concern-related RACs for allegations that are not yet closed. 

While not specified in Manual Sections 8.2.c.1. through 8.2.c.5 above, other items that may 

be evaluated as part of a regional or headquarters office self-assessment are as follows: 

- internal tracking mechanisms 

- internal status discussions for open allegations 

- routine status letters 

- timeliness to get issues to the OAC 

- timeliness to get information into AMS 

- allegation-related FOIAs 

- Agreement State issues 

- referrals to other agencies/OSHA 

- allegation documentation storage/control 

- staff training 

- upkeep of regional instructions/procedures 

- timeliness of closure of allegation files to which the closure timeliness metrics do not 

 apply after all actions have been completed 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

239

9.0 Glossary (8.8 Handbook, Section VI) 

Action office. The NRC regional or headquarters program 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 Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs (FSME), the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), 

the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), 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. [Note: Allegations related to security 

Force-on-Force exercises are under the responsibility of NSIR.] For the purposes of this 

manual, the Office of Investigations (OI), the Office of Enforcement (OE), the Office of General 

Counsel (OGC), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) are not considered action offices. 

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 counseling, 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

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.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

240

 Matters being handled by other formal processes, such as petitions for rulemaking, petitions

filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206, or contentions filed in hearings or other formal

proceedings;

 Misconduct by NRC employees or NRC contractors;

 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 as involving law enforcement and other

Government agencies.

Although not from a source external to NRC, matters identified by NRC staff that involve 

potential wrongdoing and that prompt investigation by the Office of Investigations (OI) are also 

tracked as allegations to facilitate headquarters and regional office monitoring of related OI 

follow-up. 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 activities. 

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. 

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. Because the practices 

used to implement the allegation process and monitor allegation status change periodically, the 

Allegation Manual will be maintained by the Office of Enforcement on the NRC internal web site, 

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. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

241

so that users will have access to the latest practice guidance and reference information. 

Suggestions for changes or additions to the Allegation Manual should be provided to OE.

Allegation Review Board (ARB). A board established by regional administrators or 

headquarters office directors to determine the safety significance and appropriate NRC follow 

up 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 Office of Investigations (OI), OE (or regional enforcement personnel), and 

Office of the General Counsel (OGC) (or regional counsel) may participate as deemed 

necessary by the ARB chairperson. 

Alleger. An individual who or organization that submits an allegation to NRC. Anonymous 

concerns are accepted. 

Amicus Curiae. 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 believes 

that the court's decision may affect its interest. 

Burden of Proof (Standards of Evidence). Burden of proof refers to the obligation that one 

party shift the proposed conclusion from that offered by the opposing party. For a matter of 

alleged discrimination, the worker holds the initial burden of proof through the requirement to 

establish a prima facie showing of potential discrimination. Once the worker establishes a prima 

facie showing, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to provide evidence to justify that the 

adverse personnel action taken was legitimate and non-discriminatory. 

The evidence provided by both parties is evaluated by the legal/regulatory body rendering a 

conclusion with regard to the matter of alleged discrimination. For an NRC OI investigation to 

substantiate a discrimination concern, the investigation must conclude that discrimination 

occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. NRC employs the preponderance of the 

evidence standard for essentially all of its investigative and adjudicatory decisions. 

Preponderance of the evidence is the typical standard of evidence in civil cases, and implies 

that the prevailing party must present a level and quality of evidence that outweighs that of the 

other party. It is commonly referred to as the “more likely than not standard,” or the “more 

probable than not standard,” or the “51% standard.” In a DOL discrimination case, the worker 

has the burden to prove his/her case by a preponderance of the evidence. If the 

legal/regulatory body determines that an equal level/quality of evidence has been provided by 

both parties, the defendant prevails. 

Preponderance of the evidence is the lowest (easiest to meet) of the three standards of proof 

applied to civil and criminal issues. The other two, in order of rigorousness are “clear and 

convincing evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” and are described in more detail below:

Clear and convincing evidence: Clear and convincing evidence is a higher burden of proof 

than preponderance of the evidence. Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence 

presented by a party must be substantially more probable to be true than not. In this 

standard, a greater degree of believability must be met than the “more likely than not” proof 

needed when applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. To prove something 

by clear and convincing evidence, the party with the burden of proof must demonstrate that 

the matter is substantially more likely than not to be true. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

242

The “clear and convincing” standard applies to specific types of civil cases. With regard to 

NRC-related discrimination cases, this standard is applied when the employer has the 

burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the 

same action against the worker regardless of the protected activity. However, the employer 

has this burden only after the worker establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that 

he/she was retaliated against. If the worker cannot establish, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that he/she was retaliated against, the burden of proof does not shift to the 

employer. If the worker does show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he/she was 

discriminated against, then the burden of proof would shift and the employer would have to 

demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the adverse 

personnel action regardless of the individual’s engagement in protected activity. 

Beyond a reasonable doubt: This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof and 

typically only applies in criminal proceedings. The only matters involving NRC-regulated 

activity to which the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard would apply are substantiated 

OI investigations accepted by the DOJ for criminal prosecution. 

For NRC-related discrimination claims, DOL/OSHA, DOL/ALJ and the DOL/ARB weigh the 

evidence based on the discussion above when evaluating a discrimination claim filed under 

ERA Section 211. This also applies if a DOL ARB final decision is appealed to a Federal Circuit 

Court of Appeals. However, it is to be noted that the above discussion does not address every 

possible scenario involving burdens of proof and standards of evidence, particularly when 

decisions are appealed, where the standard may change depending on what is being appealed 

and at what stage the appeal was filed. 

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. 

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 is available as Manual 

Exhibit 5).

Confidentiality. Identity protection for an alleger who has been granted confidential source 

status. (See definitions of “identity protection” and “confidential source” in this Glossary.) 

Discrimination. Adverse action taken by en employer against an employee, at least in part, for 

engaging in NRC protected activity. 

Disparate Treatment. Disparate treatment, in the context of a matter of alleged discrimination, 

occurs when a person is treated differently or less favorably than others in a similar situation. At 

issue in a case of disparate treatment is whether the employer's actions were motivated by 

discriminatory intent. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

243

Dual Motive. Dual motive is referenced when evidence suggests two explanations for action 

taken against an employee—one constituting a legitimate business reason, and the other 

demonstrating a prohibited practice. Dual motive cases typically arise when an employer does 

not specifically state an illegitimate reason for an employment decision, but defends its actions 

by indicating that they were reasonable and taken for "just cause." When such decisions are 

challenged, the legal/regulatory authority is asked to decide whether an employer acted for 

legitimate or illegitimate reasons. For NRC-related discrimination concerns, a dual motive case 

is one in which it is asserted that a worker’s engagement in protected activity contributed to the 

employer’s decision to take an adverse personnel action, beyond any other reason stated by the 

employer. As indicated in the definition of the term “pretext,” it could be decided that the 

employer’s actions were fully discriminatory (i.e., that the reasons stated by the employer were 

pretextual), that the employer’s actions were not discriminatory, or that the employers actions 

were taken for both prohibited and legitimate reasons (i.e., dual motive). In such cases, the 

employer would attempt to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that there were 

legitimate business reasons for taking the adverse personnel action and that it would have 

taken the action even in the absence of protected activity. 

Early Alternative Dispute Resolution (Early ADR). For allegation process purposes, a term 

that refers to the use of a neutral mediator to facilitate discussion between an alleger and his or 

her employer (or former/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, Rev. 1, "Pre-Investigation ADR Program, " at 

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

Harassment and Intimidation. Harassment is any action or behavior toward a person that has 

the effect or perceived effect of causing the person to be uncomfortable or afraid of working in 

the employment environment. Harassment covers a wide range of offensive intentional 

behaviors intended to be disruptive, and is characteristically repetitive, often contributing to a 

hostile work environment (see definition of “hostile work environment”). Harassment that 

progresses to the point of establishing a hostile work environment is a form of discrimination. 

Harassment that is threatening in nature is a form of intimidation. Intimidation literally means to 

“fill with fear” and refers to actions intended to coerce or inhibit by threats, insults or aggressive 

behavior. Intimidation involves an action or actions with the objective or perceived objective of 

preventing or discouraging a person from engaging in protected activities. Additionally, it is 

possible for a threat of discrimination to be considered an adverse action under Section 211 

depending on case specific circumstances. Regional Counsel/OGC should be consulted 

whenever an alleger informs NRC about a threat of discrimination so that the matter can be 

evaluated in more detail from a legal perspective to assure that the concern, if substantiated, is 

associated with NRC-regulated activity. Intimidation is a form of discrimination. 

Hostile Work Environment. A hostile work environment is a discriminatory work environment 

that is either pervasive and regular, or acute but severe, that detrimentally affects the employee, 

and that is created because the employee engaged in protected activity. A hostile work 

environment involves unwelcome conduct and/or comments, often harassing in nature, that 

unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. Anyone in the workplace can be 

involved in the creation of a hostile work environment (manager, co-worker, contractor, vendor). 

The victim can be anyone affected by the conduct, not just the individual at whom the offensive 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

244

conduct is directed. In order for action to be taken against the employer, the employee must 

establish a prima facie showing of potential discrimination in relation to an asserted hostile work 

environment. The employee must show that the harassment affected a term, condition, or 

privilege of employment. This means that the harassment was severe enough to interfere with 

the individual’s ability to work effectively and that the employee encountered an atmosphere in 

which the harassing conduct was so severe or pervasive that a reasonable co-worker would 

conclude that it impacted his/her freedom to raise safety concerns. Also, it must be 

demonstrated that the employer was aware of the hostile work environment and either failed to 

take prompt and effective action to remedy the situation or took no action at all. For reference, 

a DOL ARB decision from a Clean Air Act discrimination case (ARB 99-094) provided a list of 

factors to be weighed in evaluating a hostile work environment claim, as noted below: 

- the complainant suffered intentional discrimination because of his/her membership in a 

protected class 

- the discrimination was pervasive and regular 

- the discrimination detrimentally affected the complainant 

- the discrimination would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person of the same 

protected class, and 

- the existence of respondeat superior liability (This a legal term referring to the fact that 

an employer is responsible for employee actions performed within the course of their 

employment.) 

Identity protection. A term that refers to the protection of information that directly or otherwise 

could identify an alleger by name and/or the fact that an alleger provided information to the 

NRC. For an alleger who has been granted confidential source status, identity protection is also 

referred to as “confidentiality.”

Inspection. For allegation process purposes, a special activity usually conducted by regional 

and/or headquarters office 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. 

Licensee. For allegation process purposes, this term refers to an organization/individual, or a 

contractor, subcontractor, or vendor to an organization/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. 

Overriding safety issue. An issue that may represent an actual or potential immediate and/or 

significant threat to public health, safety, or security, warranting immediate action by the 

licensee to evaluate and address the issue. 

Pretext. In general terms, pretext refers to a motive alleged or an appearance assumed in 

order to conceal a true purpose, intention or condition. When an employer’s asserted 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

245

justification for taking an adverse personnel action is not found to be valid or when it is found 

that the circumstance suggested by the employer for taking the action was not relied upon, the 

reasoning offered by the employer is termed pretextual. After the employer has provided 

evidence in an effort to demonstrate that its actions were legitimate and non-discriminatory, the 

employee in response will attempt to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

employer’s reasons are either not believable or that discrimination was more likely the 

employer’s motivation. If the employee’s efforts are successful, it would be concluded that the 

reason offered by the employer for taking the personnel action was a pretext. If the employee’s 

efforts are not successful, it would be concluded that the employer’s action was not motivated 

by the employee’s protected activity. Lastly, the employee could be successful, in part, and a 

decision could be rendered that the employer’s action was motivated by both prohibited and 

legitimate reasons (i.e., dual motive).

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 in order to establish whether 

discrimination actually occurred. 

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 includes, but is 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, Safeguards, 

sensitive security, privacy, or proprietary information. 

Referral. Requesting another agency or external entity (other than the licensee) to provide 

allegation-related feedback, forwarding an issue to another agency or entity in its entirety when 

the issue is not an allegation, or providing an issue to NRC OIG because it relates to the 

performance of NRC staff or contractors, suspected improper conduct contact 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 an allegation-related concern-in-question (i.e., is also the action office), but 

must obtain feedback from another agency or entity in order 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 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

246

materials issues under DOE purview); or (c) the issue-in-question is an NRC staff or contractor 

performance issue to be forwarded by the NRC receiving office to NRC OIG as a matter 

involving potential NRC staff or contractor misconduct. 

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 NMSS the Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 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. A request by the action office for additional information from the 

licensee regarding the validity of an allegation concern to enable a complete NRC assessment 

in response to the concern. 

Retaliation. The act of taking an adverse action against an individual, at least in part, for 

engaging in protected activities (see Manual Section 5.2.c.2(a)(2) for examples of adverse 

action). Retaliation is a form of discrimination. 

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 

the NRC without fear of retaliation, where concerns are promptly reviewed, given the 

appropriate priority, and appropriately resolved, and where timely feedback is provided to those 

raising concerns. 

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. 

Wrongdoing. A willful violation of regulatory requirements through deliberate action or a 

violation resulting from careless disregard of regulatory requirements (see Manual Section 5.7).
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

247

List of Abbreviations/Acronyms 

Term Abbreviations 

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution 

ADRA Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 

AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

AGM Allegation Guidance Memorandum 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

AMS Allegation Management System 

ARB Allegation Review Board 

Assist OI Assist to Staff 

BASS Business Application Support System 

Caller ID Caller Identification 

CAP Corrective Action Program 

CD/CD-ROM Compact Disc, Compact Disc – Read-Only Memory 

CEL Chilling Effect Letter 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COL Combined License 

DTG Discrimination Task Group 

DVD Digital Video Disc 

EA Enforcement Action 

ECP Employee Concerns Program 

ERA Energy Reorganization Act 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

FR Federal Register 

HOO Headquarters Operations Officer 

ICR Cornell University Institute for Conflict Resolution 

IN Information Notice 

IP Inspection Procedure 

ISR Investigation Status Report 

IT Information Technology 

ITAAC Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria 

MC (Inspection) Manual Chapter 

MD Management Directive 

MIRG Millstone Independent Review Group 

MML Master Materials License 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NCV Non-Cited Violation 

NOV Notice of Violation 

OSI Overriding Safety Issue 

P2P Peer-to-Peer 

PA Privacy Act 

PII Personally Identifiable Information 

PI&R Problem Identification and Resolution 

PN Preliminary Notification 

RAC Response After Closure 

RFI Request for Information 

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 

ROP Reactor Oversight Program 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

248

List of Abbreviations/Acronyms 

Term Abbreviations (continued) 

RTR Research and Test Reactor 

RSO Radiation Safety Officer 

SAIC Special Agent in Charge (OI) 

SCWE Safety Conscious Work Environment 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 

SERP Senior Executive Review Panel 

SGI Safeguards Information 

SL Severity Level 

SLA Service Level Agreement 

SMRT Senior Management Review Team 

SRM Staff Requirements Memorandum 

SUNSI Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information 

TIA Task Interface Agreement 

TAR Technical Assistance Request 

U.S.C. United States Code 

NRC Positions/Organizations 

AAA Agency Allegation Advisor 

ADM Office of Administration 

CSO Computer Security Office 

DEDO Deputy Executive Director for Operations 

DEDMRT Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, and 

Compliance Programs 

EDO Executive Director for Operations 

FSME Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 

NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

NRO Office of New Reactors 

NSIR Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

OCA Office of Congressional Affairs 

OE Office of Enforcement 

OGC Office of General Counsel 

OI Office of Investigations 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

OIP Office of International Programs 

OIS Office of Information Services 

OPA Office of Public Affairs 

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

RI NRC Region I 

RII NRC Region II 

RIII NRC Region III 

RIV NRC Region IV 

RSAO Regional State Agreements Officer 

SECY Office of the Secretary of the Commission 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

249

List of Abbreviations/Acronyms 

External Organizations 

ALJ/OALJ Administrative Law Judge/DOL Office of Administrative Law Judges 

CIGIE Councils of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOL Department of Labor 

DOL ARB Department of Labor Administrative Review Board 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunities Commission 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board 

OSC Office of Special Counsel 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

VA Veterans Administration 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

250

Appendix A 

References, NRC Policy Documents, and Procedures Related to the Allegation Process 

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 (5 U.S.C. 552). 

- Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 3, et seq.). 

- Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a) 

- Title 18, U.S.C., “Crimes and Criminal Procedures”

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, and 76.7, 

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

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

Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes.”
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

251

NRC Management Directives 

3.1 "Freedom of Information Act." 

3.2 “Privacy Act.”

7.4 "Reporting Suspected Wrongdoing and Processing OIG Referrals." 

8.8 "Management of Allegations." 

8.11 "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions." 

9.19 "Organization and Functions, Office of Enforcement." 

10.158 “NRC Non-Concurrence Process”

10.159 “The NRC Differing Professional Views Program”

10.160 "Open Door Policy." 

12.2 “NRC Classified Information Security Program.”

12.4 “NRC Telecommunications System Security Program.”

12.5 “NRC Cyber Security Program.”

12.6 "NRC Sensitive Unclassified Information Security Program." 

12.7 “NRC Safeguards Information Security Program.”

Commission Policy Statements 

9/13/84; 49 FR 36032 Investigations, Inspections, and Adjudicatory Proceedings 

3/19/85; 50 FR 11030 Handling of Late Allegations 

1/24/89; 54FR 3424 Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant Operations (first NRC mention of 

Safety Culture) 

8/14/92; 57 FR 36678 Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution 

5/14/96; 61 FR 24336 Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety 

Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation 

5/23/96; 61 FR 25924 Protecting the Identity of Allegers and Confidential Sources 

8/13/04; 69 FR 50219 NRC Enforcement Policy; Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Commission Papers (SECY, COMSECY) - if an associated Staff Requirements Memorandum 

(SRM) is retrievable on the NRC website, it is indicated 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

252

SECY-84-26 Staff Processing of Allegations Involving Applications for Operating Licenses 

SECY-84-249B Handling of Late Allegations 

SECY-90-354 Resolution of Investigative Priorities When There is Initial Strong Evidence of 

Misconduct 

SECY-94-089 Response to the Report of the Review Team for Reassessment of NRC's 

Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation 

SECY-96-045 Commission Policy Statement on Protecting the Identity of Allegers and 

Confidential Sources 

SECY-96-056 Policy Statement, "Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise 

Safety and Compliance Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation" 

SECY-96-199 Plan to Better Focus Resources on High Priority Discrimination Cases 

SECY-97-006 Follow-up to the Annual Report on Allegations and Responses to 

Recommendations of the Millstone Independent Review Group 

SECY-97-147 Re-Evaluation of SECY-96-199 Issues; Plan to Better Focus Resources on 

High Priority Discrimination Cases (SRM) 

SECY-97-260 Resolution of Public Comments in Response to Request for Public 

Comments in the Federal Register Notice, "Safety Conscious Work 

Environment" (SRM) 

SECY-98-176 Proposed Options for Assessing a Licensee's Safety Conscious Work 

Environment (SRM) 

SECY-98-192 Resolution of Allegations Concerning the Performance of Agreement State 

Programs (SRM) 

SECY-99-002 Agreement State Compatibility Designation for NRC Employee Protection 

Regulations (SRM) 

SECY-99-071 Assessing the Effectiveness of the Allegation Program from Review of Survey 

Forms Sent to Allegers (SRM) 

SECY-99-273 Impact of Changes to the Inspection Program for Reactors on Implementing 

the Allegation Program (SRM) 

SECY-00-177 Implementing the Allegation Program under the Revised Reactor Oversight 

Process (SRM) 

SECY-01-113 Rulemaking Plan: Fatigue of Workers at Nuclear Power Plants (SRM) 

SECY-02-098 Status of the Staff's Evaluation of the Possible Use of Alternative Dispute 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

253

Resolution in the Agency's Enforcement Program 

SECY-02-0163 Survey of Allegers 

SECY-02-166 Policy Options and Recommendations for Revising the NRC's Process for 

Handling Discrimination Issues (SRM) 

SECY-03-115 Alternative Dispute Resolution Review Team Pilot Program 

Recommendations for Using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

Techniques in the Handling of Discrimination and Other External Wrongdoing 

Issues (SRM) 

SECY-04-020 Treatment of Physical Protection Under the Reactor Oversight Program 

SECY-04-044 Proposed Pilot Program for the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the 

Enforcement Program (SRM) 

SECY-04-111 Recommended Staff Actions Regarding Agency Guidance in the Areas of 

Safety Conscious Work Environment and Safety Culture (SRM) 

SECY-04-191 Withholding Sensitive Unclassified Information Concerning Nuclear Power 

Reactors from Public Disclosure (SRM) 

SECY-04-195 Rulemaking Plan: Clarification of NRC Civil Penalty Authority Over 

Contractors and Subcontractors Who Discriminate Against Employees for 

Engaging in Protected Activities 

SECY-05-101 Withholding from Disclosure Sensitive Unclassified Information Concerning 

Materials Licenses and Certificate Holders 

SECY-05-187 Status of Safety Culture Initiatives and Schedule for Near-Term Deliverables 

(SRM) 

SECY-05-212 Proposed Rulemaking - Clarification of NRC Civil Penalty Authority over 

Contractors and Subcontractors Who Discriminate Against Employees for 

Engaging in Protected Activities (RIN 3150-AH59) (SRM) 

SECY-07-032 Recommended Staff Actions Regarding Correspondence with Allegers 

Involving Security-Related Concerns (SRM) 

COMSECY-08-0009 Report of the Senior Executive Review Panel - Peach Bottom Lessons 

Learned (SRM) 

Generic NRC Communications (Bulletins, Circulars, Information Notices (IN), Regulatory 

Information Summaries (RIS)) 

IE Information Notice 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. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

254

RIS-02-007 Clarification of NRC Requirements Applicable to Worker Fatigue and SelfDeclarations 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 

NUREGs 

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

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

NUREG-1499, “Reassessment of NRC's Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation”

NUREG-1600, “NRC Enforcement Policy”

NRC Inspection Manual Chapters 

NRC IMC 0305, “Operating Reactor Assessment Program.”

NRC IMC 1007, “Interfacing Activities Between Regional Offices of NRC and OSHA.”

NRC IMC 1120, “Preliminary Notifications.”

NRC Inspection Procedures 

IP 35007, "Quality Assurance Program Implementation During Construction and PreConstruction Activities" (Appendix 16 - Inspection of Criterion XVI - Corrective Action)."

IP 40001, “Resolution of Employee Concerns.”

IP 40002, “Inspections to Review Allegations.”

IP 40100, “Independent Safety Culture Assessment Followup.” 

IP 43003, “Reactive Inspections at Nuclear Vendors.”

IP 71152, “Identification and Resolution of Problems.”

IP 88110, “Quality Assurance: Problem Identification, Resolution and Corrective Action.” 

IP 93100, “Safety-Conscious Work Environment Issue of Concern Followup.” 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

255

IP 95001, “Supplemental Inspection for One or Two White Inputs in a Strategic Performance 

Area 

IP 95002, “Supplemental Inspection for One Degraded Cornerstone or Any Three White Inputs 

in a Strategic Performance Area 

IP 95003, “Supplemental Inspection for Repetitive Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Degraded 

Cornerstones, Multiple Yellow Inputs or One Red Input 

IP 95003.02, “Guidance for Conducting an Independent NRC Safety Culture Assessment”

Other Documents 

- NRC Announcement No. 18, "Reporting Suspected Wrongdoing "Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG)," March 3, 1994. 

- NRC Enforcement Manual. 

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

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

(NRC) and the Department of Labor (DOL) [Federal Register 10/27/1998, Vol. 63, No. 207, Pgs. 

57324-57325]
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

256

Appendix B 

Allegation Guidance Memoranda 

AGM # DATE SUBJECT 

96-01 11/12/96 Additional Measures to Protect the Identity of Allegers and 

Confidential Sources 

96-01, Rev. 1 03/14/97 Additional Measures to Protect the Identity of Allegers and 

Confidential Sources (Revision 1) 

96-02 11/12/96 Assuring the Technical Adequacy of the Basis for Closing 

an Allegation 

98-01 01/29/98 Informing Allegers and Licensees of Completion of 

Investigations by the Office of Investigations 

98-01, Rev. 1 06/26/98 Informing Allegers and Licensees of Completion of 

Investigations by the Office of Investigations (Revision 1) 

98-02 10/19/98 Revising the Criteria for Investigating Discrimination 

Allegations (ML012410431) 

00-01 07/05/00 Guidance on Correspondence, Releasing Information in 

(FOIA) Requests, and Defining Discrimination and the 

Elements of a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination 

(ML003727873)

03-01 03/11/03 Authorized Use of Hand-Delivered Commercial Carriers as 

an Alternate Means of Communicating with Allegers 

(ML030500270)

AAA Memo 06/11/03 “Written Notice” Language Concerning Department of 

Labor (DOL) Filings 

04-02 07/29/04 Guidance on Confirmation of Identity of Concerned 

Individuals who Submit Allegations via Internet 

(ML042150016) 

04-03 10/15/04 Implementation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Pilot 

Program within the Allegation Program 

04-03, Rev. 1 04/27/05 Implementation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Pilot 

Program Within the Allegation Program (Revision 1) 

(ML051160015) 

AAA Memo 07/19/05 Lessons Learned - Engaging Allegers With Potential 

Safeguards Information 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

257

AAA Memo 12/14/05 Review of Inadvertent Releases of Alleger Identities 

05-01 03/16/06 Guidance on Correspondence to Licensees and 

Concerned Individuals Regarding Security-Related 

Concerns (ML060750008) 

07-01 05/14/07 Updated Guidance on Correspondence to Licensees and 

Concerned Individuals Regarding Security-Related 

Concerns (ML071310407) 

08-01 12/29/08 Interim Guidance in Response to Lessons Learned from 

the Allegation Assessment of Inattentive Security Officers 

at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (ML083640272)

AAA Memo 04/21/09 Modifications to the Allegation Program Assessment 

Process (ML091110541) 

AAA Memo 09/09/09 Allegation Program Refresher Training - Identity Protection 

and Processing Requirements (ML092400437) 

08-01, Rev. 1 02/02/10 Final Guidance in Response to Lessons Learned from the 

Allegation Assessment of Inattentive Security Officers at 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (ML092400437)

11-01 11/20/11 Late Filed Allegations (ML11227A241) 

12-01 03/09/12 NRC Chilling Effect Letters (ML1205A058) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

258

Appendix C 

Allegation Program Contact Information 

NRC Office Allegation Coordinators (OAC) – Contact information 

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/OE/ - from OE internal web page, click “OE Rosters” then “NRC Allegation Staff” to view a 

current listing of OAC names, OAC e-mail addresses, group e-mail addresses, region/office toll free telephone 

numbers, OAC phone numbers, and fax numbers 

NRC Safety Hotline: 1-800-695-7403 (contacts OAC for the geographical area from which the call originates during 

normal working hours, contacts the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer during other hours) 

NRC Region/Headquarters Toll Free Telephone Numbers: 

Region I: 1-800-432-1156 

Region II: 1-800-577-8510

Region III: 1-800-522-3025 

Region IV: 1-800-952-9677 

NRC Headquarters: 1-800-368-5462

NRC OIG Hotline: 1-800-233-3497

The NRC Safety Hotline toll free number, the region/headquarters toll free telephone numbers, and the OIG Hotline 

toll free number are also located on NRC Form 3, “Notice to Employees”

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/forms/form3_us.pdf

NRC Headquarters Operations Officer: 1-800-816-5100

Agency Allegation Advisor: 301-415-8529 

================================================ 

Department of Labor (DOL) Contact Information 

 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

 Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ)

 Administrative Review Board (DOL ARB)

 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals

DOL National Office 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

DOL National Toll Free Numbers - 1-866-487-2365 (1-866-4USADOL), 1-800-397-6251 

DOL/OSHA National Toll Free Number - 1-800-321-OSHA(6742) 

For Concerns about DOL Performance or the Validity of Information Provided to DOL: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Office of Investigations 

Complaint Analysis Office 

Room S 5514 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20210 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

259

DOL OSHA Regional Field Offices 

http://www.osha.gov/html/RAmap.html

Regional Office – OSHA Region 1 Regional Office – OSHA Region 2

JFK Federal Building, Room E340 201 Varick Street, Room 670 

Boston, Massachusetts 02203 New York, New York 10014 

(617) 565-9860 (212) 337-2378 

(617) 565-9827 FAX (212) 337-2371 FAX 

Regional Office – OSHA Region 3 Regional Office – OSHA Region 4

U.S. Department of Labor/OSHA 61 Forsyth Street, SW 

The Curtis Center-Suite 740 West Room 6T50 

170 S. Independence Mall West Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3309 (678) 237-0400 

(215) 861-4900 (678) 237-0447 FAX 

(215) 861-4904 FAX 

Regional Office – OSHA Region 5 Regional Office – OSHA Region 6

230 South Dearborn Street, Room 3244 525 Griffin Street, Suite 602 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 Dallas, Texas 75202 

(312) 353-2220 (972) 850-4145 

(312) 353-7774 FAX (972) 850-4149 FAX 

Regional Office – OSHA Region 7 Regional Office – OSHA Region 8

Two Pershing Square Building 1999 Broadway, Suite 1690 

2300 Main Street, Suite 1010 Denver, Colorado 80202 

Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2416 720-264-6550 

(816) 283-8745 720-264-6585 FAX 

(816) 283-0547 FAX 

Regional Office – OSHA Region 9 Regional Office – OSHA Region 10 

90 7th Street, Suite 18100 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 715 

San Francisco, California 94103 Seattle, Washington 98101-3212 

(415) 625-2547) (206) 553-5930 

(415) 625-2534 FAX (206) 553-6499 FAX 

DOL OSHA Regional Contacts (as of 9/30/2014) 

OSHA Region 1 – Michael Mabee DOL OSHA Regional Contact e-mail addresses: 

OSHA Region 2 – John Scheck (Last Name).(First Name)@dol.gov 

OSHA Region 3 – William Seguin 

OSHA Region 4 – Ben Ross 

OSHA Region 5 – Sherrill Benjamin 

OSHA Region 6 – Gerald Foster 

OSHA Region 7 – Robert Mercer 

OSHA Region 8 – Rita Lucero 

OSHA Region 9 – Joshua Paul 

OSHA Region 10 – Victoria Coleman 

DOL OSHA National Toll Free Number To Report Unsafe Working Conditions or Safety & Health Violations - 1-800-

323-6742 

DOL – OALJ 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

Suite 400 North 

800 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20001-8002 

Telephone: 202-693-7300 

Fax: 202-693-7365 

www.oalj.dol.gov/
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

260

OALJ Questions: OALJ-Questions@dol.gov

DOL ARB 

U. S. Department of Labor 

Administrative Review Board 

Room S-5220 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

Telephone: (202) 693-6200 

Fax: (202) 693-6220

http://www.dol.gov/arb/

================================================= 

U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeals 

Washington D.C. Office 

U. S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

717 Madison Place, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20439 

(202) 275-8000 

Circuit Courts of Appeals Addresses/Phone Numbers 

U. S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit 

1 Courthouse Way Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 

Boston, Massachusetts 02210 40 Foley Square 

(617) 748-9057 New York, NY 10007 

(212) 857-8500 

U. S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit 

21400 U.S. Courthouse 1100 East Main Street 

601 Market Street Richmond, VA 

Philadelphia, PA 19106 (804) 916-2700 

(215) 597-2995 

U. S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit 

600 S. Maestri Place 540 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse 

New Orleans, LA 70130-3408 100 East Fifth Street 

(504) 310-7700 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

(513) 564-7000 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit 

Room 2722 Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse 

219 S. Dearborn Street 111 South 10th Street 

Chicago, IL 60604 Room 26.325 

(312) 435-5850 St. Louis, MO 63102 

(314) 244-2600 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit 

P.O. Box 193939 The Byron White U.S. Courthouse 

San Francisco, CA 94119-3939 1823 Stout Street 

(415) 355-8000 Denver, CO 80257 

(303) 844-3157 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the 12th Circuit 

56 Forsyth St. N.W. 333 Constitution Avenue 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Washington, D.C. 20001 

(404) 335-6100 (202) 216-7000 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

261

================================================ 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) 

1615 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20419 

(202) 653-7200 - telephone 

(202) 653-7130 - fax 

(800) 209-8960 - toll free message line 

mspb@mspb.gov

=============================================== 

U. S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) 

Headquarters Office 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel 

1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218 

Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 

Tel: (202) 254-3600 

Fax: (202) 254-3711

www.osc.gov/

For complaints alleging prohibited practices in federal employment: 

Complaints Examining Unit 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel 

1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218 

Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 

Tel: (800) 872-9855 

(202) 254-3670 

A list of OSC contacts is located at: http://www.osc.gov/contacts.htm

====================================================== 

NRC Agreement States 

NRC Agreement State Contact Information 

http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/asdirectory.html

====================================================== 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

131 M Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20507 

(202) 663-4900 

1-800-669-4000 

info@eeoc.gov

====================================================== 

U. S. Department of Energy 

U. S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington D.C. 

(202) 586-2203 

DOE Office of the Inspector General 

1000 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

DOE IG Field Offices – http://energy.gov/ig/about-us/field-offices
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

262

Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) at the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and 

Education (ORISE) – provides dose estimates for medical events and radiological incident medical consultation 

Address: MC-100-44

P. O. Box 117 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831 

Phone: 865-576-3146 

Emergency Phone: 865-576-1005 

DOE National Laboratories 

Brookhaven National Lab Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 

P.O. Box 5000 P.O. Box 451 

Upton, NY 11973-5000 Princeton, NJ 08543-0451 

(631) 344-8000 (609) 243-2000 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Savannah River National Laboratory 

626 Cochrans Mill Road Savannah River Site 

P. O. Box 10940 Aiken, SC 29808 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 (803) 725-3020 

(412) 553-7681 

(other locations in Morgantown, WV, 

Houston, TX, Fairbanks, AK, and Albany, OR) 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 

P.O. Box 2008 P.O. Box 500 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Batavia, IL 60510-5011 

(865) 574-4160 (630) 840 3000 

(630) 840 4343 FAX 

Argonne National Laboratory Ames Laboratory 

9700 S. Cass Avenue 311 TASF 

Argonne, IL 60439 Ames, IA 50011-3020

(630) 252-2000 (515) 294-2770 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 

P. O. Box 999 12000 Jefferson, Avenue 

Richland, WA 99352 Newport News, VA 23606 

(509) 375-2121 (757) 269-7100 

1-888-375-7665 (757) 267-7363 FAX 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 901 D. Street, S.W. Suite 930 

Golden, CO 80401-3305 Washington, D.C. 20024-2157 

(303) 275-3000 (202) 488-2200 

Idaho National Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

2525 Fremont Avenue 1 Cyclotron Road 

Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Berkeley, CA 94720 

(866) 495-7440 (510) 486-4000 

Los Alamos National Laboratory Sandia National Laboratories 

P. O. Box 1663 P. O. Box 5800 

Los Alamos, NM 87545 Albuquerque, NM 87185 

(505) 667-5061 (505) 284-2001 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 

7000 East Avenue 2575 Sand Hill Road 

Livermore, CA 94550 Menlo Park, CA 94025 

(925) 422-1100 (650) 926-3000 

925-422-1370 FAX 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

263

==================================================== 

Department of Justice (DOJ) Radiation Exposure Compensation Program 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P. O. Box 146 

Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was passed in 1990 to allow partial restitution to individuals who 

developed exposure to radiation during atmospheric nuclear tests (1945-1962) or after employment in the uranium 

industry. 

=================================================== 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

(202) 272-0167 

EPA National Response Center: 1-800-424-8802 

=================================================== 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA 

800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) 

CDC Link to State Health Departments: 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/international/relres.html

=================================================== 

For concerns about NRC OIG: 

Integrity Committee 

Councils of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) 

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Room 3973 

Washington, DC 20535-0001 

Phone: (202) 324-3768 

E-mail: IC_Complaints@ic.fbi.gov
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

264

Exhibit 1 

Information to be Obtained/Provided During the Initial Contact with the Alleger 

Concern Details: For each concern, ask: Who, What, When, How, Where, and Why? (names, department, location, 

system, equipment) 

How did you find out about the concern? 

Were there witnesses? Are there other individuals who should be contacted? 

Is there other information/documentation/physical evidence NRC should review? 

What is the potential safety impact? Are there related requirements, procedures, or commitments? 

What is the current status? Have any corrective/compensatory actions been taken? 

Did you raise the concern to management? If so, what was the response? 

RFI Consideration: Would you object to NRC requesting information from the licensee or referring part of the 

review to an appropriate entity (e.g., State, Agreement State, other Federal agency)? If the alleger objects, ask 

why such action would be inappropriate or ineffective. 

At some point in the conversation, discuss the standard identity protection provisions for the NRC allegation program: 

Obtain and record basic contact information: If not already provided during the discussion of the alleger’s

concerns, obtain the following contact and identifying information before concluding the discussion: date, name, 

home address, phone number, facility, employer and position, preferences for method and time of contact 

Additional Questions for an Alleger Raising a Discrimination Concern: 

- What was your protected activity? When did you engage in it? 

- What personnel action was taken against you and when was it taken? 

- Was the individual who took the personnel action against you aware that you engaged in protected activity? If 

so, how and when? 

- What makes you feel that the personnel action was taken against you because of your engagement in protected 

activity? 

- Is there is any documentation that would assist the NRC in reviewing the discrimination issue? 

- Have you contacted DOL/OSHA, a State whistleblower protection office (for state employees or for concerns 

against Agreement State licensees), or the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB)(for federal employees other 

than DOE employees)? 

If the alleger expresses interest in contacting DOL, provide DOL contact information for the appropriate DOL 

Regional Office, and inform the alleger that: 

Allegation Process Standard Identity Protection Policy

NRC takes all reasonable efforts not to disclose your identity. Identifying information is only distributed internally 

by NRC staff on a need-to-know basis. If asked, we will neither confirm nor deny that you raised a concern to the NRC, 

except when required to do so for any of the following (rare and exceptional) reasons:

• Overriding health or safety issue

• Court order or NRC adjudicatory authority or to inform Congress or State or Federal agencies in furtherance of NRC

responsibilities under law or public trust

• To support a hearing on an enforcement matter

• Disclosure necessary to further a wrongdoing investigation (NRC Office of Investigations (OI) discretion)

• If you take actions that are inconsistent with and override the purpose of protecting your identity (e.g., informing the media)

• Disclosure mandated by FOIA

- For discrimination concerns, inform the alleger that NRC will disclose his or her identity to the licensee and/or the

employer during an NRC discrimination investigation 

- If alleger has no objection to being identified, NRC may reveal his or her identity outside the agency if it is necessary to

evaluate the allegation 

- If alleger states that many are aware of his/her concern, it is acceptable to inform him/her that, while the NRC will

continue to protect his/her identity, doing so may be difficult

Note: For State employees, a discrimination claim to DOL may not be an option. State employees should be instructed to 

consider contacting the State to determine if it has a program for processing such matters.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

265

- Personal remedy may be obtained through DOL if a discrimination complaint is filed in a timely manner and the

employer does not have another legitimate reason for the action taken against you. 

- A written complaint must be filed with DOL within 180 days of the date of the personnel action or the date any 

notice of the action, in writing or otherwise, is received by you, whichever occurred first. 

- Any unresolved technical issues that provide a basis for the discrimination claim are evaluated by the NRC 

allegation process without regard to action that may be taken by DOL. 

Regarding the possibility that the NRC OI may investigate the discrimination concern, an alleger is also to be 

informed that: 

• NRC will determine whether or not an investigation is warranted based on the information you provide

• If the NRC opens an investigation, your identity will be disclosed

• NRC may complete its investigation before DOL and may take action independent of DOL

Additional Questions for an Alleger Raising a Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) Concern:

Use the following questions, as necessary, to gather insights regarding whether there are impediments to the SCWE 

at the facility. 

- Are there any specific concerns you or others haven’t raised? If so, will you tell us about them now?

- What specifically happened and when that impacted your willingness to raise safety concerns (or to challenge 

actions or decisions you believe are unsafe)? 

- What types of concerns are you hesitant to raise and why? Can you give some examples? [Try to ascertain what 

impact such concerns would have on safety (nuclear safety related?) by getting examples.] 

- What avenues are you hesitant to use to raise concerns and why? [Ex: supervisor, senior management, corrective 

action program, employee concerns program, NRC, etc.] 

- Which organizations and how many individuals are impacted by the chilled work environment? Can you provide 

 the names of others you believe have been chilled or who have indicated to you that they are chilled? 

- Who is contributing to the chilled work environment and what influence does this individual have on those that are 

chilled? 

- Do you believe management is aware of the chilled work environment? If yes, have actions been taken to address 

the situation and do you feel the actions have been effective? 

- In general, are you aware of actions taken by your management to prevent and detect chilled work environments? 

If yes, do you feel their actions are generally effective? 

If the alleger provides contact information but requests no additional contact with NRC: 

Explain the advantages of continued involvement in the allegation process (listed below) and encourage the alleger’s 

continued involvement: 

- facilitates understanding of the concerns raised 

- allows NRC to obtain additional information as needed, 

- affords the alleger the opportunity to assess and provide feedback regarding NRC’s conclusions

DO NOT provide information about the Early-ADR process during the initial contact with an alleger raising a discrimination 

concern, since the Allegation Review Board, with input from Regional Counsel/OGC, must first establish that an alleger has 

articulated a prima-facie showing of potential discrimination before Early-ADR is offered.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

266

Exhibit 1A 

Sample Allegation Intake Form 

Allegation Number: -20 -A- (assigned by OAC) Date Received: / /

Facility: Docket/License No: Employee Receiving Allegation: 

Alleger Name: 

Alleger’s Employer:

Alleger’s Position/Title:

Home Phone:

Home Address:

Other Alleger Contact Information

Work Phone:

Cell Phone:

E-Mail:

Allegation received by: Phone In Person

Letter E-Mail Fax DOL Complaint

OI Transcript Media/Internet

Source: Licensee Employee

Former Licensee Employee Contractor

Former Contractor Anonymous

News Media Private Citizen

Federal Agency State Agency 

NRC Staff Licensee-Identified 

Special Interest Group

Allegation Process Identity Protection Policy - NRC takes all reasonable efforts 

not to disclose your identity. Identifying information is only distributed 

internally by NRC staff on a need-to-know basis. If asked, we will neither confirm 

nor deny that you raised a concern to the NRC, except when required to do so for any 

of the following (rare and exceptional) reasons:

• Overriding health or safety issue

• Court order or NRC adjudicatory authority or to inform Congress, State, or Federal

agencies per NRC responsibilities under law or public trust

• To support a hearing on an enforcement matter

• Disclosure necessary to further a wrongdoing investigation (OI discretion)

• If you take actions that are inconsistent with and override the purpose of protecting

your identity (e.g., informing the media)

• Disclosure mandated by FOIA

- If you have no objection to being identified, NRC may reveal your identity outside

the agency if it is necessary to evaluate the allegation 

- (For a discrimination concern) The NRC will disclose your identity to the licensee

and/or employer during an NRC discrimination investigation 

- (If alleger states that many are aware of his/her concern, it is acceptable to inform

him/her that, while the NRC will continue to protect his/her identity, doing so may 

be difficult)

Identity Protection Information Provided: Y N N/A 

Confidentiality Requested: Y N 

Confidentiality Granted: Y N 

Individual Granting Confidentiality:

(only individuals with delegated authority may grant confidentiality)

Number of Concerns: Does any concern involve a potential immediate 

safety significant issue? Y N 

If Yes, immediately inform management and 

responsible allegation office.

Alleger informed that a Request for 

Information (RFI) to the licensee is a potential 

NRC evaluation option? Y N 

If Yes, did the alleger object? Y N 

If Yes, describe reason for alleger’s objection.

Concern Details: For each concern, ask: Who/What/When/How/Where/Why? (names, dept., location, system, equipment)

- How did you find out about the concern?

- Were there witnesses? Are there other individuals who should be contacted?

- Is there other information/documentation/physical evidence NRC should review?

- What is the potential safety impact? Are there related requirements, procedures, or commitments?

- What is the current status? Have any corrective/compensatory actions been taken?

- Did you raise the concern to management? If so, what was the response?

Additional Questions for an Alleger Raising a Discrimination Concern:

- What was your protected activity? When did you engage in it?

- What personnel action was taken against you and when was it taken? 

- Was the person who took the action against you aware that you engaged in protected activity? If so, how and when?

- What makes you feel that the personnel action was taken against you because of your engagement in protected activity?

- Is there is any documentation that would assist the NRC in reviewing the discrimination issue? 

- Have you contacted DOL/OSHA, a State whistleblower protection office (for state employees or for concerns against 

Agreement State licensees), or the Merit Systems Protection Board (for federal employees other than DOE employees)? [Note: 

For State employees, a discrimination claim to DOL/OSHA may not be an option. State employees should be instructed to 

consider contacting the State to determine if it has a program for processing such matters.]

If alleger is interested in filing a DOL complaint, provide contact information for the appropriate DOL/OSHA Regional Office

(http://www.osha.gov/html/RAmap.html), and inform the alleger that:

- Personal remedy may be obtained through DOL if a discrimination complaint is filed in a timely manner and the employer does

not have another legitimate reason for the action taken against you.

- A written complaint must be filed with DOL within 180 days of the date of the personnel action or the date any notice of the 

action, in writing or otherwise, is received by you, whichever occurred first. 

- Any unresolved technical issues that provide a basis for the discrimination claim are evaluated by the NRC allegation process 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

267

without regard to action that may be taken by DOL. 

Regarding the possibility that the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) may investigate the discrimination concern, an alleger is also 

to be informed that: • NRC will determine whether or not an investigation is warranted based on the information you provide

• If the NRC opens an investigation, your identity will be disclosed

• NRC may complete its investigation before DOL and may take action independent of DOL

Additional Questions for an Alleger Raising a “Chilling Effect”/Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) Concern: 

- Are there any specific concerns you or others haven’t raised? If so, will you tell us about them now?

- What specifically happened and when that impacted your willingness to raise safety concerns (or to challenge actions or 

decisions you believe are unsafe)?

- What types of concerns are you hesitant to raise and why? Can you give some examples? [Try to ascertain what impact such 

concerns would have on safety (nuclear safety related?) by getting examples.] 

- What avenues are you hesitant to use to raise concerns and why? [Ex: supervisor, senior management, corrective action 

program, employee concerns program, NRC, etc.] 

- Which organizations and how many individuals are impacted by the chilled work environment? Can you provide the names of 

others you believe have been chilled or who have indicated to you that they are chilled? 

- Who is contributing to the chilled work environment and what influence does this individual have on those that are chilled? 

- Do you believe management is aware of the chilled work environment? If yes, have actions been taken to address the 

situation `` and do you feel the actions have been effective?

- In general, are you aware of actions taken by your management to prevent and detect chilled work environments? If yes, do 

you feel their actions are generally effective? 

If the alleger provides contact information but requests no additional contact with NRC: Explain the advantages of continued 

involvement in the allegation process (i.e., facilitates understanding of the concerns raised, allows NRC to obtain additional 

information as needed, and affords the alleger the opportunity to assess and provide feedback regarding NRC’s conclusions) and 

encourage the alleger’s continued involvement.

Concern #: Discipline: (blank) (blank) Reactor Department: (blank)

Alleger Informed Licensee:

Section 211 Violation Asserted?

Applicable Regulation: [required for wrongdoing 

concerns]

When did the potential violation occur?

/ /

Functional 

Area: (blank) 

(blank)

Safety Significance: [Describe potential safety impact, 

assuming concern is true.] 

If security-related, determine security concern category, based 

on information received, assuming concern is true (determines

level of detail to be provided external to NRC). (See MD 8.8 

Handbook, Section II.L.3(d)(i)). (requires security staff input) 

Cat. I Cat. II Cat. III

Concern Description:

Concern Details/Background Information:
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

268

Concern #: Discipline: (blank) (blank) Reactor Department: (blank)

Alleger Informed Licensee:

Section 211 Violation Asserted?

Applicable Regulation: [required for wrongdoing 

concerns]

When did the potential violation occur?

/ /

Functional 

Area: (blank) 

(blank)

Safety Significance: [Describe potential safety impact, 

assuming concern is true.] 

If security-related, determine security concern category, 

based on information received, assuming concern is true 

(determines level of detail to be provided external to NRC). 

(See MD 8.8 Handbook, Section II.L.3(d)(i)). (requires 

security staff input) Cat. I Cat. II Cat. III

Concern Description:

Concern Details/Background Information:
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

269

Exhibit 2 

Ability of Agreement States to Protect Alleger Identity from Disclosure 

The States noted in the table provide some level of identity 

protection to concerned individuals. All are Agreement 

States. The type and degree of identity protection 

available will differ depending on the State. For this 

reason, if a concerned individual agrees to allow NRC to 

provide his/her name and contact information to the State, 

and is interested in the degree to which the State will be 

able to protect his/her identity, he/she should be instructed 

to contact the State directly to obtain further detail (See 

http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/ for Agreement State contact 

information). 

STATES WITH ABILITY 

TO PROTECT IDENTITY

Alabama

Arizona

California

Iowa

Illinois

Kansas

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Washington

Wisconsin
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

270

Exhibit 3 

NRC Form 762 – Sensitive Allegation Material Cover Sheet 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

- - - WARNING - - -

SENSITIVE ALLEGATION

MATERIAL

THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH MAY 

RELATE TO AN OFFICIAL NRC INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION 

WHICH MAY BE EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PURSUANT 

TO ONE OR MORE PARTS OF TITLE 10, CODE OF FEDERAL 

REGULATIONS.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SPECIAL HANDLING REQUIRED

WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED, DISPOSE OF THE ATTACHED 

DOCUMENT IN A SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED WASTE 

RECEPTACLE OR BY DESTROYING BY ANY MEANS THAT CAN 

PREVENT RECONSTRUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART. SEE 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 12.5 FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON 

DELETING SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL FROM 

ELECTRONIC STORAGE MEDIA.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS LIMITED TO 

STAFF AS REQUIRED FOR BRIEFING AND RESOLUTION. 

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS IS 

PROHIBITED.

NRC FORM 762

[9-2005]
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

271

Exhibit 4 

NRC Form 761 – Confidential Allegation Material Cover Sheet 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

- - - WARNING - - -

CONFIDENTIAL ALLEGATION

MATERIAL

THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT CONTAINS MATERIAL RELATED TO 

AN OFFICIAL NRC CONFIDENTIAL ALLEGATION AND IDENTIFIES 

A CONFIDENTIAL ALLEGATION SOURCE WHICH MAY EXEMPT 

THIS DOCUMENT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO 

ONE OR MORE PARTS OF TITLE 10, CODE OF FEDERAL 

REGULATIONS.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SPECIAL HANDLING REQUIRED

RETURN THIS DOCUMENT TO THE DESIGNATED ALLEGATION

COORDINATOR WHEN NO LONGER REQUIRED

THE DOCUMENT MUST BE SECURED WHEN NOT PERSONALLY 

ATTENDED. ACCESS TO INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS 

LIMITED TO ALLEGATION COORDINATION STAFF AND 

AUTHORIZED NRC STAFF MEMBERS. DISCLOSURE OF 

INFORMATION TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS IS PROHIBITED.

NRC FORM 761

[9-2005]
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

272

Exhibit 5 

Confidentiality Agreement 

I have information that I wish to provide in confidence to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I request 

an express pledge of confidentiality as a condition for providing this information to the NRC. 

It is my understanding that consistent with its legal obligations, the NRC, by agreeing to this confidentiality, will 

adhere to the conditions stated herein. During the course of an inquiry or investigation, the NRC will make its best 

effort to avoid actions that would clearly be expected to result in disclosure of my identity. 

My identity will be divulged outside the NRC only in the following narrow situations: 

(1) When disclosure is necessary because of an overriding safety issue and I agree to this disclosure. If I cannot be 

reached to obtain my approval or do not agree to disclosure, the NRC staff will contact the Commission for 

resolution. 

(2) When a court orders such disclosure. 

(3) When required in NRC adjudicatory proceedings by order of the Commission itself. 

(4) In response to a written Congressional request. While such a request will be handled on a case-by-case basis, 

the request must be in writing and the NRC will make its best efforts to limit the disclosure to the extent possible. 

(5) When requested by a Federal or State agency in furtherance of its statutory responsibilities and the agency 

agrees to abide by the terms of this confidentiality agreement, and I agree to the release. If I do not agree to the 

release, my identity may be provided to another agency only in an extraordinary case where the Commission 

itself finds that furtherance of the public interest requires such release. 

(6) When the Office of Investigations (OI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are pursuing an investigation or 

when OI is working with another law enforcement agency, my identity may be disclosed to DOJ or the other law 

enforcement agency without my knowledge or consent. 

(7) When required to support a hearing on an NRC enforcement matter. 

My identity will be withheld from NRC staff, except on a need-to-know basis. Consequently, I acknowledge that if I 

have further contacts with NRC personnel, I cannot expect that those people will be cognizant of this confidentiality 

agreement, and it will be my responsibility to bring that point to their attention if I desire similar treatment for the 

information provided to them. 

I also understand that the NRC will revoke my grant of confidentiality if I take, or have taken, any action so 

inconsistent with the grant of confidentiality that the action overrides the purpose behind the confidentiality, such as 

(1) disclosing publicly information that reveals my status as a confidential source or (2) intentionally providing false 

information to the NRC. The NRC will attempt to notify me of its intent to revoke confidentiality and provide me an 

opportunity to explain why this action should not be taken. 

Other Conditions: (if any) 

I have read and fully understand the contents of this agreement. I agree with its provisions. 

________________________ ______________________________ 

Date Name and Address ______________________________ 

______________________________ 

Agreed to on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

________________________ ______________________________ 

Date Signature 

_____________________________ 

Name and Title 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

273

Exhibit 6 

Sample Allegation Review Board Disposition Record 

Allegation Number: -20 -A- ARB Date: / /

Facility: Docket/License No: Responsible Division/Branch: 

SRI/RI Informed: Y N N/A 

Region-Based Inspectors Informed: Y N N/A 

Confidentiality Requested: Y N 

Confidentiality Granted: Y N 

Alleger Informed of ID Protection 

Policy: Y N N/A 

Received Date: / /

30-Days = / /

150-Days = / /

180-Days = / /

Acknowledged: 

Y N N/A 

ARB Purpose/Issue Discussed:

ARB Participants

Chair: 

OAC: 

OI: 

OGC/Counsel: 

Branch Chief: 

Other Attendees: 

ARB Type:

Initial 

6-Month 

10-Month 

Follow Up 

Emergency/Ad-Hoc 

RFI (to Licensee) Considerations:

Overriding Safety Issue

Conditions Inhibiting RFI:

Will compromise alleger 

identity protection

Will compromise investigation 

or inspection

Against mgmt that would 

review RFI

Fed or State agency 

disapproves of RFI

Other RFI Considerations if Inhibiting Conditions Do Not Apply

Release could bring harm to alleger. Describe 

Alleger Objects to RFI. Describe 

Alleger has raised concern to licensee w/unsatisfactory results.

Recent NRC concerns w/licensee RFI responses.

Other Items Potentially Affecting RFI Response Quality:

Recent Inspection findings? Last PI&R? Describe 

Substantive Cross-Cutting Issue? Describe 

Allegation history issues? Describe

Licensee policy/process issues? Describe 

Resource issues? Describe 

Other? Describe 

RFI Acceptable? Y N 

- Summarize reason (required unless RFI Worksheet is included in the allegation file)

General Comments/Notes: Applicable Concern(s): 

OGC/Regional Counsel Input Applicable Concern(s):

Discrimination Allegation Prima-Facie Showing? Y N 

Alleger engaged in protected activity

Adverse action taken against alleger

Management knowledge of alleger’s protected activity

Protected activity was, at least in part, a reason for the adverse action

Other OGC/Regional Counsel Comments: 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

274

Concern #: Discipline: (blank) (blank) Reactor Department: (blank)

Alleger Informed Licensee: OI Case Number: OI Priority: High Medium Low 

Rationale for OI priority or for not initiating OI 

investigation:

Concern Description: 

Safety Significance: [Describe potential safety impact, 

assuming concern is true. Assigned action completion dates 

should be in line with indicated safety significance.] 

If security-related, provide the security concern category (for 

determining the level of detail to be provided external to 

NRC). Determine category based on information received, 

assuming that it is true. (requires security staff input)

Cat. I Cat. II Cat. III 

Applicable Regulation: [required for wrongdoing and 

discrimination concerns]

When did potential violation occur? / /

Action: (blank) (blank)

(blank)

Assigned 

Branch/Individual: 

Estimated Completion Date: 

/ /

Completed Date: 

/ /

Comment:

Action: (blank) (blank)

(blank)

Assigned 

Branch/Individual: 

Estimated Completion Date: 

/ /

Completed Date: 

/ /

Comment:

Action: (blank) (blank)

(blank)

Assigned 

Branch/Individual: 

Estimated Completion Date: 

/ /

Completed Date: 

/ /

Comment: 

Action: (blank) (blank)

(blank)

Assigned 

Branch/Individual: 

Estimated Completion Date: 

/ /

Completed Date: 

/ /

Comment: 
Exhibit 7 

Memorandum of Understanding Between NRC and the Department of Labor (DOL) 

Notice of Signing of a Revised Memorandum of Understanding Between the NRC and DOL 

[Federal Register 10/27/1998, Vol. 63, No. 207, Pgs. 57324-57325]

SUMMARY: The NRC and DOL entered into a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 

effective September 9, 1998. The purpose of the MOU is to facilitate coordination and 

cooperation concerning the employee protection provisions of Section 211 of the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5851. Both agencies agree that 

administrative efficiency and sound enforcement policies will be maximized by this cooperation 

and the timely exchange of information in areas of mutual interest. The text of the MOU is set 

forth below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Edward T. Baker, telephone 301-415-8529

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, MS O-5E-7 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of October 1998. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Edward T. Baker III, 

Agency Allegation Advisor, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Labor and the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission; Cooperation Regarding Employee Protection Matters 

1. Purpose

The NRC and the DOL enter into this agreement to facilitate coordination and cooperation

concerning the employee protection provisions of Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization

Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5851.

2. Background

Section 211 of the ERA prohibits any employer, including an NRC licensee, license applicant

or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant, from discriminating

against any employee with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges

of employment because the employee assisted or participated, or is about to assist or

participate in any manner in any action to carry out the purposes of either the ERA or the

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

NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

275 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

276

The NRC and DOL have complementary responsibilities in the area of employee protection. 

DOL has the responsibility under Section 211 of the ERA to investigate employee complaints 

of discrimination and may, after an investigation or hearing, order a violator to take affirmative 

action to abate the violation, reinstate the complainant to his or her former position with back 

pay, and award compensatory damages, including attorney fees. NRC, although without 

authority to provide a remedy to an employee, has independent authority under the AEA to 

take appropriate enforcement action against Commission applicants and licensees and their 

contractors that violate the AEA or Commission requirements, (i.e., 10 CFR 50.7 and similar 

requirements in other parts of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations) which prohibit 

discrimination against employees based on their engaging in protected activities. NRC 

enforcement action may include issuance of a Notice of Violation to the responsible 

applicant, licensee, contractor, and/or individual; imposition of a civil penalty; issuance of an 

order removing the responsible individual from licensed activities; and/or license denial, 

suspension, modification or revocation. 

Although each agency will carry out its statutory responsibilities independently, the agencies 

agree that administrative efficiency and sound enforcement policies will be maximized by 

cooperation and the timely exchange of information in areas of mutual interest. 

3. Areas of Cooperation

a. DOL agrees to promptly notify NRC of any complaint filed with DOL alleging discrimination

within the scope of Section 211 of the ERA by a Commission licensee, applicant or a

contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant. DOL will provide a

quarterly listing of Section 211 complaints received. DOL will promptly provide NRC a copy of

all complaints, decisions made prior to a hearing, investigation reports, and orders associated

with any hearing or administrative appeal on the complaint. DOL will also cooperate with the

NRC and shall keep the NRC informed on the status of any judicial proceedings seeking

review of an order of DOL's Administrative Review Board issued in a proceeding under

Section 211 of the ERA.

b. NRC and DOL agree to cooperate with each other to the fullest extent possible in every case

of alleged discrimination involving employees of Commission licensees, license applicants, or

contractors or subcontractors of Commission licensees or applicants. Every agency agrees to

share all information it obtains concerning a particular complaint of discrimination and, to the

extent permitted by law, will protect information identified as sensitive that has been supplied

to it by the other agency. This cooperation does not require either agency to share

information gathered during an investigation until the investigation is complete.

c. For cases in which the NRC completes its investigation of a Section 211 complaint, and

DOL's investigation is still ongoing, the NRC will provide the results of its investigation to the

appropriate Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) contact, subject to

Department of Justice (DOJ) constraints on the timing of the release of NRC investigation

material. NRC will take all reasonable steps to assist DOL in obtaining access to licensed

facilities and any necessary security clearances. Consistent with relevant statutes, NRC

regulations, and the availability of NRC resources, the NRC will cooperate with DOL and

make available information, agency positions, and agency witnesses as necessary to assist

DOL in completing the adjudication record on complaints filed under Section 211.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

277

d. If the NRC receives a complaint concerning a possible violation of Section 211, it will inform

the complainant that a personal remedy is available only through DOL and that the person

must personally contact DOL in order to file a complaint. NRC will provide the complainant

the local address and phone number of the OSHA office and advise the complainant that

OSHA must receive the complaint within 180 days of the alleged discrimination.

e. Each agency shall designate and maintain points of contact within its headquarters and

regional offices for purposes of implementation of the MOU. Matters affecting program and

policy issues will be handled by the headquarters offices of the agencies.

4. Implementation

The NRC official responsible for implementation of this agreement is the Chairman of the

NRC. The DOL official responsible for implementation of this agreement is the Secretary of

Labor.

5. Amendment and Termination

This Agreement may be amended or modified upon written agreement by both parties to the

Agreement. The Agreement may be terminated upon ninety (90) days written notice by either

party.

6. Effective Date

This agreement is effective when signed by both parties.

Shirley Ann Jackson, 

Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dated: September 1, 1998. 

Alexis Herman, 

Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor. 

Dated: September 9, 1998. 
Exhibit 8

Allegation Process Flow Chart

STANDARD ALLEGATION EVALUATION PROCESS

A. DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION PROCESSING (WITH DOL PROCESS STEPS, IF APPLICABLE)

Receipt of 

potential 

allegation

Potential 

immediate 

public health 

and safety 

concern 

Conduct Ad -

Hoc/Special 

NRC ARB

Yes

No

Provide 

allegation 

receipt info to 

manager and 

OAC

5 days

Conduct NRC ARB

- discuss allegation concerns

- involve appropriate staff (tech staff, OI, OGC)

- articulate safety significance

- consider if specific evidence of potential 

wrongdoing exists (for a wrongdoing allegation)

- discuss options for evaluating a discrimination 

allegation (see flowchart A.)

- consider whether additional info is needed

- determine NRC follow -up actions

- assign responsibilities and action dates

within 30 

days of 

receipt

Responsible staff review 

to: clarify concerns; 

consider re -contacting 

alleger for more info, if 

appropriate; evaluate for 

any immediate public 

health and safety 

issues; propose follow -

up actions; draft 

potential violations (for 

wrongdoing concerns); 

prepare briefing info for 

NRC ARB

Allegation Evaluation:

- inspection/technical review

- RFI to licensee

- referral to another agency/entity (e.g. FEMA)

- wrongdoing investigation 

- discrimination investigation or Early ADR (see 

flowchart A.)

Send 

acknowledgement 

letter to alleger (if 

alleger's identity is 

known)

Send closure 

letter to alleger 

addressing 

concerns 

for open technical concerns, ARB 

is reconvened at 6 months from 

last ARB and ~ every 4 months 

thereafter, until closed 

ASAP

NRC Review of Allegation Evaluation Results:

- inspection results

- licensee response to RFI (NRC review includes 

effort to verify and validate aspects of licensee 

response)

- response from external agency

- OI investigation report and exhibits

- Early ADR or alternate settlement

Document NRC Allegation Evaluation and 

NRC Conclusions 

- describe means of evaluation

- describe NRC review of evaluation results, 

and efforts to verify and validate, as 

appropriate

- articulate NRC's conclusion regarding each 

concern (e.g., substantiated, 

unsubstantiated, in whole or in part, 

including whether aspects of concern were 

found to be valid, and whether any NRC 

violations were identified.) Licensee is notified if a 

violation is identified. For 

undocumented minor 

violations, licensee is notified 

verbally of the violation when 

the allegation is closed. For 

non -escalated findings to be 

documented in an IR, staff will 

assure that licensee has been 

verbally informed of the 

violation before the allegation 

is closed. Licensee will be 

notified of potential escalated 

enforcement via the 

enforcement process.

[Note: If substantiated concern 

relates to a wrongdoing matter, 

and DOJ considers criminal 

prosecution, NRC enforcement 

will be coordinated with DOJ.]

Did tech review, 

inspection, 

investigation, 

licensee/external 

entity/agency 

response address 

concerns?

Determine action to obtain 

needed info:

- additional inspection

- additional investigation

- additional RFI to licensee

(determination made by 

responsible staff or at follow 

up NRC ARB, depending on 

nature of required additional 

action)

Re -contact alleger for 

additional information

Are 

substantiated 

concerns 

violations?

Yes

No

Additional 

info needed 

from alleger

New 

information or 

concerns?

Discrimination 

concern

Allegation

filed w/NRC

DOL 

complaint filed

NRC ARB 

- prima facie 

review?

Copy of DOL

complaint

sent to NRC

Early ADR

offer 

accepted?

Close/Await DOL Close

Offer Early ADR -

see Early ADR 

Process flowchart

No

Yes

Yes

OI

investigation

OI 

finding?

Close

DOJ 

referral?

Enforcement?

Enforcement 

Conference –

Enforcement 

Action – Post 

Investigation 

ADR

Close w/Enf.

Action or 

Order via Post 

Investigation 

ADR 

settlement

Close

DOL/OSHA

Decision?

Licensee

Appeal?

NRC Chilling

Effect Letter?

Alleger 

Appeal?

Close

DOL 

ALJ

RDO?

NRC Chilling

Effect Letter?

NRC Enforcement

Action? – pending 

DOL

Licensee

Appeal?

DOL 

ARB Final

Decision

Alleger

appeal?

Case closed with 

resolution

Close

Close

NRC Enforcement Coordinated with DOJ 

Licensee non -appeal of DOL finding considered in NRC enforcement decision

No Discrimination

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No Discrimination

No Discrimination

No 

Discrimination

Decline

Accept

OAC - Office Allegation Coordinator

RFI - Request for Information

NRC ARB – NRC Allegation Review Board

ADR – Alternative Dispute Resolution

OI – NRC Office of investigations

DOL – Department of Labor

DOL ALJ – DOL Administrative Law Judge

RDO – Recommended Decision and Order

DOL ARB – DOL Administrative Review Board

DOJ – Department of Justice

No

Yes

No

Yes

Does alleger object to NRC 

providing the licensee a 

written RFI related to the 

allegation?

(document alleger's response 

for discussion at NRC ARB)

Early ADR 

successful?

Licensee informed of unsubstantiated OI 

investigation results by separate letter. If OI 

case is substantiated, licensee is usually 

informed of investigation results via the 

enforcement process.

Yes

No
Exhibit 9 

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

Complaints Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Title 29, Volume 1 

Revised as of July 1, 2003 

TITLE 29--LABOR--PART 24--PROCEDURES FOR THE HANDLING OF DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS UNDER FEDERAL 

EMPLOYEE PROTECTION STATUTES 

Sec. 24.1 Purpose and scope. 

(a) This part implements the several employee protection provisions for which the Secretary of Labor has been given responsibility 

pursuant to the following Federal statutes: Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-9(i); Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 

1367; Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2622; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6971; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7622; Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5851; and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9610. (b) Procedures are established by this part pursuant to the Federal statutory provisions 

listed in paragraph (a) of this section, for the expeditious handling of complaints by employees, or persons acting on their 

behalf, of discriminatory action by employers. (c) Throughout this part, ``Secretary'' or ``Secretary of Labor'' shall mean the 

Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, or his or her designee. ``Assistant Secretary'' shall mean the Assistant 

Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or his or her designee. 

Sec. 24.2 Obligations and prohibited acts. 

(a) No employer subject to the provisions of any of the Federal statutes listed in Sec. 24.1(a), or to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

(AEA), 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to 

the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee, or any person acting 

pursuant to the employee's request, engaged in any of the activities specified in this section. 

(b) Any employer is deemed to have violated the particular federal law and the regulations in this part if such employer intimidates, 

threatens, restrains, coerces, blacklists, discharges, or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because the 

employee has: (1) Commenced or caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or cause to be commenced, a 

proceeding under one of the Federal statutes listed in Sec. 24.1(a) or a proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any 

requirement imposed under such Federal statute; (2) Testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding; or (3) Assisted or 

participated, or is about to assist or participate, in any manner in such a proceeding or in any other action to carry out the 

purposes of such Federal statute. 

(c) Under the Energy Reorganization Act, and by interpretation of the Secretary under any of the other statutes listed in Sec. 

24.1(a), any employer is deemed to have violated the particular federal law and these regulations if such employer intimidates, 

threatens, restrains, coerces, blacklists, discharges, or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because the 

employee has: (1) Notified the employer of an alleged violation of such Federal statute or the AEA of 1954; (2) Refused to 

engage in any practice made unlawful by such Federal statute or the AEA of 1954, if the employee has identified the alleged 

illegality to the employer; or (3) Testified before Congress or at any Federal or State proceeding regarding any provision (or 

proposed provision) of such Federal statute or the AEA of 1954. 

(d) (1) Every employer subject to the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, shall prominently post and keep posted in 

any place of employment to which the employee protection provisions of the Act apply a fully legible copy of the notice 

prepared by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, printed as appendix A to this part, or a notice approved 

by the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health that contains substantially the same provisions and 

explains the employee protection provisions of the Act and the regulations in this part. Copies of the notice prepared by 

DOL may be obtained from the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington, D.C. 20210, from 

local offices of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or from the Department of Labor's Website at http:// 

www.osha.gov. 

(2) Where the notice required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section has not been posted, the requirement in Sec. 24.3(b)(2) that 

a complaint be filed with the Assistant Secretary within 180 days of an alleged violation shall be inoperative unless the 

respondent establishes that the complainant had notice of the material provisions of the notice. If it is established that the 

notice was posted at the employee's place of employment after the alleged discriminatory action occurred or that the 

complainant later obtained actual notice, the 180 days shall ordinarily run from that date. 

NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

279

Sec. 24.3 Complaint. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

280

(a) Who may file. An employee who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by an employer in violation of any of 

the statutes listed in Sec. 24.1(a) may file, or have another person file on his or her behalf, a complaint alleging such 

discrimination. 

(b) Time of filing. 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any complaint shall be filed within 30 days after the occurrence of 

the alleged violation. For the purpose of determining timeliness of filing, a complaint filed by mail shall be deemed filed as 

of the date of mailing. 

(2) Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, any complaint shall be filed within 180 days after the occurrence of the 

alleged violation. 

(c) Form of complaint. No particular form of complaint is required, except that a complaint must be in writing and should include a 

full statement of the acts and omissions, with pertinent dates, which are believed to constitute the violation. 

(d) Place of filing. A complaint may be filed in person or by mail at the nearest local office of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, listed in most telephone directories under U.S. Government, Department of Labor. A complaint may also be 

filed with the Office of the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Washington, D.C. 20210. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1215-0183) 

Sec. 24.4 Investigations. 

(a) Upon receipt of a complaint under this part, the Assistant Secretary shall notify the person named in the complaint, and the 

appropriate office of the Federal agency charged with the administration of the affected program of its filing. 

(b) The Assistant Secretary shall, on a priority basis, investigate and gather data concerning such case, and as part of the 

investigation may enter and inspect such places and records make copies thereof), may question persons being proceeded 

against and other employees of the charged employer, and may require the production of any documentary or other evidence 

deemed necessary to determine whether a violation of the law involved has been committed. 

(c) Investigations under this part shall be conducted in a manner which protects the confidentiality of any person other than the 

complainant who provides information on a confidential basis, in accordance with part 70 of this title. 

(d) (1) Within 30 days of receipt of a complaint, the Assistant Secretary shall complete the investigation, determine whether the 

alleged violation has occurred, and give notice of the determination. The notice of determination shall contain a statement 

of reasons for the findings and conclusions therein and, if the Assistant Secretary determines that the alleged violation 

has occurred, shall include an appropriate order to abate the violation. Notice of the determination shall be given by 

certified mail to the complainant, the respondent, and their representatives (if any). At the same time, the Assistant 

Secretary shall file with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, the original complaint and a copy 

of the notice of determination. 

(2) The notice of determination shall include or be accompanied by notice to the complainant and the respondent that any 

party who desires review of the determination or any part thereof, including judicial review, shall file a request for a 

hearing with the Chief Administrative Law Judge within five business days of receipt of the determination. The 

complainant or respondent in turn may request a hearing within five business days of the date of a timely request for a 

hearing by the other party. If a request for a hearing is timely filed, the notice of determination of the Assistant Secretary 

shall be inoperative, and shall become operative only if the case is later dismissed. If a request for a hearing is not timely 

filed, the notice of determination shall become the final order of the Secretary. 

(3) A request for a hearing shall be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge by facsimile (fax), telegram, hand delivery, or 

next-day delivery service. A copy of the request for a hearing shall be sent by the party requesting a hearing to the complainant 

or the respondent (employer), as appropriate, on the same day that the hearing is requested, by facsimile (fax), telegram, hand 

delivery, or next-day delivery service. A copy of the request for a hearing shall also be sent to the Assistant Secretary for 

Occupational Safety and Health and to the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Washington, D.C. 20210. 

Sec. 24.5 Investigations under the Energy Reorganization Act. 

(a) In addition to the investigation procedures set forth in Sec. 24.4, this section sets forth special procedures applicable only to 

investigations under the Energy Reorganization Act. 

(b) (1) A complaint of alleged violation shall be dismissed unless the complainant has made a prima facie showing that protected 

behavior or conduct as provided in Sec. 24.2(b) was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in 

the complaint. 

(2) The complaint, supplemented as appropriate by interviews of the complainant, must allege the existence of facts and 

evidence to meet the required elements of a prima facie case, as follows: (i) The employee engaged in a protected activity 

or conduct, as set forth in Sec. 24.2; (ii) The respondent knew that the employee engaged in the protected activity; (iii) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

281

The employee has suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and (iv) The circumstances were sufficient to raise the 

inference that the protected activity was likely a contributing factor in the unfavorable action. 

(3) For purposes of determining whether to investigate, the complainant will be considered to have met the required burden if 

the complaint on its face, supplemented as appropriate through interviews of the complainant, alleges the existence of 

facts and either direct or circumstantial evidence to meet the required elements of a prima facie case, i.e., to give rise to 

an inference that the respondent knew that the employee engaged in protected activity, and that the protected activity was 

likely a reason for the personnel action. Normally the burden is satisfied, for example, if it is shown that the adverse 

personnel action took place shortly after the protected activity, giving rise to the inference that it was a factor in the 

adverse action. If these elements are not substantiated in the investigation, the investigation will cease. 

(c) (1) Notwithstanding a finding that a complainant has made a prima facie showing required by this section with respect to 

complaints filed under the Energy Reorganization Act, an investigation of the complainant's complaint under that Act shall 

be discontinued if the respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same 

unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the complainant's protected behavior or conduct. 

(2) Upon receipt of a complaint under the Energy Reorganization Act, the respondent shall be provided with a copy of the 

complaint (as supplemented by interviews of the complainant, if any) and advised that any evidence it may wish to submit 

to rebut the allegations in the complaint must be received within five business days from receipt of notification of the 

complaint. If the respondent fails to make a timely response or if the response does not demonstrate by clear and 

convincing evidence that the unfavorable action would have occurred absent the protected conduct, the investigation shall 

proceed. The investigation shall proceed whenever it is necessary or appropriate to confirm or verify the information 

provided by respondent. 

(d) Whenever the Assistant Secretary dismisses a complaint pursuant to this section without completion of an investigation, the 

Assistant Secretary shall give notice of the dismissal, which shall contain a statement of reasons therefor, by certified mail to 

the complainant, the respondent, and their representatives. At the same time the Assistant Secretary shall file with the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, a copy of the complaint and a copy of the notice of dismissal. The notice 

of dismissal shall constitute a notice of determination within the meaning of Sec. 24.4(d), and any request for a hearing shall be 

filed and served in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 24.4(d) (2) and (3). 

Sec. 24.6 Hearings. 

(a) Notice of hearing. The administrative law judge to whom the case is assigned shall, within seven calendar days following 

receipt of the request for hearing, notify the parties by certified mail, directed to the last known address of the parties, of a day, 

time and place for hearing. All parties shall be given at least five days notice of such hearing. However, because of the time 

constraints upon the Secretary by the above statutes, no requests for postponement shall be granted except for compelling 

reasons or with the consent of all parties. 

(b) Consolidated hearings. When two or more hearings are to be held, and the same or substantially similar evidence is relevant 

and material to the matters at issue at each such hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge may, upon motion by any party 

or on his own or her own motion, order that a consolidated hearing be conducted. Where consolidated hearings are held, a 

single record of the proceedings shall be made and the evidence introduced in one case may be considered as introduced in 

the others, and a separate or joint decision shall be made, as appropriate. 

(c) Place of hearing. The hearing shall, where possible, be held at a place within 75 miles of the complainant's residence. 

(d) Right to counsel. In all proceedings under this part, the parties shall have the right to be represented by counsel. 

(e) Procedures, evidence and record--

(1) Evidence. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most 

probative evidence available shall be applied. The administrative law judge may exclude evidence which is immaterial, 

irrelevant, or unduly repetitious. 

(2) Record of hearing. All hearings shall be open to the public and shall be mechanically or stenographically reported. All 

evidence upon which the administrative law judge relies for decision shall be contained in the transcript of testimony, 

either directly or by appropriate reference. All exhibits and other pertinent documents or records, either in whole or in 

material part, introduced as evidence, shall be marked for identification and incorporated into the record. 

(3) Oral argument; briefs. Any party, upon request, may be allowed a reasonable time for presentation of oral argument and 

to file a prehearing brief or other written statement of fact or law. A copy of any such prehearing brief or other written 

statement shall be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge or the administrative law judge assigned to the case 

before or during the proceeding at which evidence is submitted to the administrative law judge and shall be served upon 

each party. Post-hearing briefs will not be permitted except at the request of the administrative law judge. When 

permitted, any such brief shall be limited to the issue or issues specified by the administrative law judge and shall be due 

within the time prescribed by the administrative law judge. 

(4) Dismissal for cause. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

282

(i) The administrative law judge may, at the request of any party, or on his or her own motion, issue a recommended 

decision and order dismissing a claim: (A) Upon the failure of the complainant or his or her representative to attend a 

hearing without good cause; or (B) Upon the failure of the complainant to comply with a lawful order of the 

administrative law judge. 

(ii) In any case where a dismissal of a claim, defense, or party is sought, the administrative law judge shall issue an 

order to show cause why the dismissal should not be granted and afford all parties a reasonable time to respond to 

such order. After the time for response has expired, the administrative law judge shall take such action as is 

appropriate to rule on the dismissal, which may include a recommended order dismissing the claim, defense or party. 

(f) (1) At the Assistant Secretary's discretion, the Assistant Secretary may participate as a party or participate as amicus curiae 

at any time in the proceedings. This right to participate shall include, but is not limited to, the right to petition for review of 

a recommended decision of an administrative law judge, including a decision based on a settlement agreement between 

complainant and respondent, to dismiss a complaint or to issue an order encompassing the terms of the settlement. 

(2) Copies of pleadings in all cases, whether or not the Assistant Secretary is participating in the proceeding, shall be sent to 

the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and to the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair 

Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20210. 

(g) (1) A Federal agency which is interested in a proceeding may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceedings, at 

the agency's discretion. 

(2) At the request of a Federal agency which is interested in a proceeding, copies of all pleadings in a case shall be served 

on the Federal agency, whether or not the agency is participating in the proceeding. 

Sec. 24.7 Recommended decision and order. 

(a) Unless the parties jointly request or agree to an extension of time, the administrative law judge shall issue a recommended 

decision within 20 days after the termination of the proceeding at which evidence was submitted. The recommended decision 

shall contain appropriate findings, conclusions, and a recommended order and be served upon all parties to the proceeding. 

(b) In cases under the Energy Reorganization Act, a determination that a violation has occurred may only be made if the 

complainant has demonstrated that protected behavior or conduct was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action 

alleged in the complaint. Relief may not be ordered if the respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it 

would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of such behavior. The proceeding before the 

administrative law judge shall be a proceeding on the merits of the complaint. Neither the Assistant Secretary's determination 

to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Sec. 24.5 without completing an investigation nor the Assistant Secretary's determination 

not to dismiss a complaint is subject to review by the administrative law judge, and a complaint may not be remanded for the 

completion of an investigation on the basis that such a determination to dismiss was made in error. 

(c) (1) Upon the conclusion of the hearing and the issuance of a recommended decision that the complaint has merit, and that a 

violation of the Act has occurred, the administrative law judge shall issue a recommended order that the respondent take 

appropriate affirmative action to abate the violation, including reinstatement of the complainant to his or her former 

position, if desired, together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions, and privileges of that 

employment, and, when appropriate, compensatory damages. In cases arising under the Safe Drinking Water Act or the 

Toxic Substances Control Act, exemplary damages may also be awarded when appropriate. 

(2) In cases brought under the Energy Reorganization Act, when an administrative law judge issues a recommended order 

that the complaint has merit and containing the relief prescribed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the administrative law 

judge shall also issue a preliminary order providing all of the relief specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section with the 

exception of compensatory damages. This preliminary order shall constitute the preliminary order of the Secretary and 

shall be effective immediately, whether or not a petition for review is filed with the Administrative Review Board. Any 

award of compensatory damages shall not be effective until the final decision is issued by the Administrative Review 

Board. 

(d) The recommended decision of the administrative law judge shall become the final order of the Secretary unless, pursuant to 

Sec. 24.8, a petition for review is timely filed with the Administrative Review Board. 

Sec. 24.8 Review by the Administrative Review Board. 

(a) Any party desiring to seek review, including judicial review, of a recommended decision of the administrative law judge shall file 

a petition for review with the Administrative Review Board (``the Board''), which has been delegated the authority to act for the 

Secretary and issue final decisions under this part. To be effective, such a petition must be received within ten business days 

of the date of the recommended decision of the administrative law judge, and shall be served on all parties and on the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge. If a timely petition for review is filed, the recommended decision of the administrative law judge shall 

be inoperative unless and until the Board issues an order adopting the recommended decision, except that for cases arising 

under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, a preliminary order of relief shall be effective while review is conducted by the 

Board. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

283

(b) Copies of the petition for review and all briefs shall be served on the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 

20210. 

(c) The final decision shall be issued within 90 days of the receipt of the complaint and shall be served upon all parties and the 

Chief Administrative Law Judge by mail to the last known address. 

(d) (1) If the Board concludes that the party charged has violated the law, the final order shall order the party charged to take 

appropriate affirmative action to abate the violation, including reinstatement of the complainant to that person's former or 

substantially equivalent position, if desired, together with the compensation (including back pay), terms, conditions, and 

privileges of that employment, and, when appropriate, compensatory damages. In cases arising under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act or the Toxic Substances Control Act, exemplary damages may also be awarded when appropriate. 

(2) If such a final order is issued, the Board, at the request of the complainant, shall assess against the respondent a sum 

equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including attorney and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred 

by the complainant, as determined by the Board, for, or in connection with, the bringing of the complaint upon which the 

order was issued. 

(e) If the Board determines that the party charged has not violated the law, an order shall be issued denying the complaint. 

Sec. 24.9 Exception. 

This part shall have no application to any employee alleging activity prohibited by this part who, acting without direction from his or 

her employer (or the employer's agent), deliberately causes a violation of any requirement of a Federal statute listed in Sec. 24.1(a). 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

284

START

Discrimination 

allegation 

received

Hold ARB to 

determine if 

prima facie

Exhibit 10 - Early Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Process Flow Chart

Prima Facie 

Showing?

Standard 

allegation process 

evaluation and 

closure

END

ND

No

Yes

Offer Early ADR in acknowledgment 

letter—enter in AMS as “ADR Offered” with 

acknowledgment letter date as start date

OAC informs OE of 

ADR offer w/prima 

facie evidence 

Does alleger 

accept ADR 

offer ?

Does 

licensee 

accept ADR 

offer?

Alleger and licensee formally 

enter mediation; OE ADR 

Program Manager receives 

agreement to mediate and 

informs OAC—enter in AMS as 

“ADR Alleger” with an 

estimated completion date 90 

days later (Exempt from 

allegation closure timeliness 

metrics)

Settlement agreement 

reviewed by OGC. OE 

notifies OAC of result 

and provides copy of 

agreement

Is agreement 

acceptable?

Close 

allegation END

Yes

Yes

No

No

Do alleger 

and licensee 

agree to 

settle?

e to

settle?

d licensee

agree to

settle?

Extension to 

90-day time 

limit granted?

Schedule ARB to 

discuss disposition (e.g., 

OI investigation), if not 

already determined at 

initial ARB

Early ADR mediation 

contractor informs 

mediator to come to an 

acceptable agreement 

(allotted time—90 

days, additional time 

negotiated)

Is the new 

agreement 

acceptable?

Has an extension 

been granted?

END

No Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

ARB - Allegation Review Board

AMS - Allegation Management System

ICR - Institute on Conflict Resolution

OAC - Office Allegation Coordinator

OE - Office of Enforcement

OGC - Office of General Counsel

OI - Office of Investigations
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

285

Exhibit 11

Sample Agreement to Mediate (Early ADR) 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Enforcement ADR Program 

Administered by (Early ADR Mediation Contractor) 

EARLY ADR AGREEMENT TO MEDIATE 

This Agreement to Mediate is between _____________and____________(individually referred 

to as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties"). The Parties have agreed to engage in Early 

ADR (as discussed below) with the following understandings and expectations. 

1. The NRC's Early ADR program refers to the use of mediation to resolve complaints of

discrimination alleging the violation of the NRC's regulation. Early ADR is not for resolving

other safety or technical issues. Generally, the parties to the mediation are the complainant

and the employer. The Parties understand that the NRC is not a party in the mediation nor

does it attend any meetings with the Parties.

2. With the assistance of an independent neutral mediator that the Parties mutually select, the

Parties agree in good faith to attempt to resolve their dispute through mediation without an

NRC investigation. The Parties understand that the mediator is not authorized to render any

binding decisions.

3. If not already done so, before engaging in settlement discussions but as soon as practicable

after signing this agreement, the Parties agree to take the opportunity to familiarize

themselves with the Early ADR program by reviewing the information at

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

ADR program. 

4. The Parties understand that the mediation process is informal, flexible and entirely voluntary.

Each Party may withdraw from the mediation process at any time for any reason.

5. The Parties understand that typically the mediator will conduct a face-to-face session with

both Parties in attendance. Each Party will be expected to summarize their position and be

willing to consider (but not necessarily agree with) the other Party's contention(s). During the

mediation session, the mediator, as he or she deems appropriate, may meet separately with

each Party to facilitate communication between the Parties.

6. As soon as practicable after signing this Agreement to Mediate, each Party agrees to

cooperate with the other to mutually select a mediator from a list of neutrals provided by the

(Early ADR mediation contractor) and agree on a time and place to meet for the mediation

session. The Parties understand that the NRC expects that the Early ADR process will take

no longer than 90 days after signing the Agreement to Mediate.

Allegation #:__________________ 

ADR #:______________________
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

286

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Enforcement ADR Program 

Administered by (Early ADR Mediation Contractor) 

7. The Parties understand that mediation is a confidential process and that the mediator is

prohibited by federal law from discussing the mediation proceedings, testifying on anyone's

behalf concerning the mediation, or submitting any report on the substance of the

discussions. Each Party understands that there are a few exceptions to mediator

confidentiality which the mediator will explain further if any participant requests; these

exceptions include instances such as where someone expresses an intent to commit

violence or where a federal judge orders disclosure to prevent an injustice.

8. The Parties agree not to discuss the substance of the mediation with anyone except with their

advisor(s) or legal counsel or as may be required by law. Each Party agrees to ensure that

such other person(s) agree to respect the confidentiality of the process. Confidentiality does

not extend to information which indicates a potential or existing safety or security issue at any

facility.

9. The Parties understand that the NRC will pay the mediator's fee and expenses that the

Parties select through (the Early ADR mediation contractor). The Parties are responsible for

their own respective expenses such as any travel or lodging expenses or meeting room fees,

if any.

10. The Parties agree to be bound by the confidentiality provisions of this Agreement to Mediate

regardless of the outcome of the mediation process.

11. If the Parties reach a settlement agreement, the Parties agree to include a provision which

allows either party to rescind the agreement for any reason within 3 calendar days after its

execution.

12. After the execution of the settlement agreement and before the NRC initiates an

investigation, one of the Parties must provide a copy of the settlement agreement to the

NRC for review for it to be considered as part of the NRC's ADR program. The sole purpose

of the NRC's review is to ensure that the terms of the settlement agreement do not restrict

the complainant from engaging in a protected activity.

13. The Parties understand that if they settle their dispute and meet the above referenced

conditions, the NRC, in accordance with the NRC's policy, will not investigate the

discrimination complaint giving rise to this mediation process.

14. The Parties understand that the NRC is not responsible for the mediator's conduct.

Signature (Individual): _________________________________ Date:______________

Signature (Company Representative):_____________________ Date:______________

Name & Title:___________________________________________

Allegation #:____________________ 

ADR #:________________________
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

287

Exhibit 12 

Sample Allegation Acknowledgment Letter 

XXXX-20XX-A-XXXX 

(Alleger’s Name and Address)

SUBJECT: Concern(s) You Raised to the NRC Regarding (facility name) 

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. (Alleger's last name): 

USE FOR ALL CONCERNS EXCEPT THOSE RECEIVED VIA DOL/OSHA DISCRIMINATION 

COMPLAINT 

This letter refers to your (letter to, telephone conversation with, electronic mail message to, 

meeting with, interview with, etc.) (NRC staff member(s)) on/dated (date) in/during which you 

expressed concerns related to (general concern reference, e.g., maintenance issues, operations 

issues and alleged discrimination, etc.) at (facility name). 

USE IN PLACE OF THE ABOVE SENTENCE IF ALLEGATION WAS RECEIVED VIA A 

DOL/OSHA DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT 

We are in receipt of the discrimination complaint that you filed with the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL) against ___________ (licensee/certificate holder/applicant/contractor/vendor) at 

(site/facility). While your pursuit of a personal remedy in the matter of your (discrimination 

issue) is being evaluated by DOL, the NRC is tasked with regulating safety at facilities licensed 

by the NRC or using materials licensed by the NRC. In this role, it is our responsibility to 

evaluate any safety concerns that you may have raised in this matter. [INCLUDE IF DOL 

COMPLAINT DOES NOT ARTICULATE SPECIFIC SAFETY ISSUES] In order to determine 

whether or not you have specific safety concerns warranting NRC review, apart from the 

employment discrimination issues that are currently before DOL, it is requested that you contact 

(me/Allegation Coordinator name) at the toll free telephone number noted below so that the 

details of your technical concerns may be discussed. If you choose, you may provide details 

regarding your technical concerns in writing to (me/Allegation Coordinator name) at (Allegation 

Office address). 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

Enclosure 1 to this letter documents your concern(s) as we understand (it/them). We have 

initiated actions to evaluate your concern(s) and will inform you of our findings. The NRC 

normally conducts an evaluation of a technical concern within six months, although complex 

issues may take longer. If the description of (your concern/any of your concerns) as noted in 

Enclosure 1 is not accurate, please contact me so that we can assure that your concern(s) 

(is/are) appropriately described and adequately addressed prior to the completion of our review. 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

(NOTE: This should appear only on the first page and the official record copy.) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

288

USE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE IF TECHNICAL CONCERNS RELATED TO A 

DISCRIMINATION MATTER ARE BEING REVIEWED BY NRC 

Please understand that your technical concern(s) will be evaluated separately from your 

discrimination concern, and you will receive a separate response to it/each technical concern. 

[INCLUDE IF SECURITY-RELATED CONCERNS ARE PART OF THE ALLEGATION] 

Regarding your security-related concerns, please be aware that the information NRC will 

provide you regarding our assessment of this issue may be limited, as appropriate, to ensure 

that we are not unnecessarily releasing information that would reveal any potential securityrelated vulnerabilities. 

USE FOR GENERIC CONCERNS 

After review of the information you provided, we have determined that (the concern(s) you 

raised OR some of the concerns you raised) may impact a number of facilities. Because the 

resolution of this/these concern(s) will require a review of multiple facilities and may require a 

review of and/or changes to NRC policy, the time necessary to resolve this/these concern(s) 

may be extended. Due to the potential general applicability of your concern(s), we have 

transferred (it/them) to the (affected headquarters office), the NRC office responsible for 

resolving issues in this area. Your contact at (affected headquarters office) is: (provide name, 

title, address phone number and e-mail of affected headquarters office allegation coordinator) 

USE WHEN A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FROM THE LICENSEE IS PLANNED OR 

IS AN OPTION 

As part of our response to your concern(s), we (may/intend to) request (licensee name) to 

perform an evaluation and provide a written response to the NRC. In that case [NOTE: Do not 

use qualifying phrase "In that case" if first sentence of paragraph indicates that NRC intends to 

issue an RFI to the licensee], your name and any other identifying information will be excluded 

from the information that is provided to (licensee name) in the request for information. We 

(have requested/will request) that (licensee name’s) evaluation be thorough, objective, and that 

the evaluator be independent of (licensee name) management responsible for oversight of the 

functional area related to your concern(s). We will evaluate (licensee name’s) response, and 

consider it in developing our conclusions regarding your concern(s). We will inform you of our 

disposition once we have evaluated (licensee name’s) response and taken any additional 

actions, if necessary, to address your concern(s). [USE IF APPLICABLE] In your conversation 

with (NRC employee name) on (date), you indicated that you would not object to the NRC 

requesting information from the licensee with regard to your concern(s). 

USE IF RFI IS PLANNED OR IS AN OPTION AND ALLEGATION RECEIPT 

DOCUMENTATION DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER THE ALLEGER OBJECTS TO NRC 

ISSUING AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE 

Please contact (me/Allegation Coordinator name) at the toll free telephone number noted below 

if you have any objections to NRC issuing such a request for information. We will consider any 

objections that you may have before deciding to request a written response regarding your 

concern(s) from (licensee name), and make every attempt to contact you before a request for 

information is actually provided to (licensee name). If you do not contact us within [ten] days of 

the date you receive this letter, it is our intent to proceed with issuance of the request for 

information to (licensee name). 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

289

USE IF, AFTER PRIOR DISCUSSION WITH THE ALLEGER, THE ARB DETERMINES THAT 

PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE ALLEGATION-RELATED INSPECTION OR INVESTIGATION 

IS PLANNED 

As part of our response to your concern(s) and as discussed with you on (date), we plan to 

publicly discuss that our (inspection/investigation) is related to an allegation to afford others an 

opportunity to bring pertinent information to our attention. Your name and any other identifying 

information will be excluded from the information that is discussed. In your conversation with 

(NRC employee name) on (date), you indicated that you would not object to the NRC publicly 

discussing that the (inspection/investigation) is related to concerns raised through the NRC 

allegation program. Please contact (me/Allegation Coordinator name) at the toll free telephone 

number noted below if you have any objections at this time to the NRC disclosing the fact that 

our (inspection/investigation) activities are related to an allegation assessment. We will 

consider any objections that you may have before doing so. If you do not contact us within [ten] 

days of the date you receive this letter, it is our intention to proceed with our plans to publicly 

discuss that our (inspection/investigation) is related to an allegation. 

USE IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED FROM THE ALLEGER 

After evaluating the information you provided, we have determined that we will need additional 

information from you in order for the NRC to perform an effective review of your concern(s). For 

example, if you can provide...(provide examples of specific types of information that would 

support NRC review OR refer to a list of questions provided elsewhere, e.g., in Enclosure 1), 

such information would help us focus our review effort. [USE IF APPLICABLE] We have 

attempted to contact you by telephone without success. If you have any additional information 

to provide, please call (me/Allegation Coordinator name) at the toll free telephone number noted 

below, or contact (me/Allegation Coordinator name) in writing at (Allegation Office address), 

within [ten] days of the date you receive this letter. If no additional information is received, (we 

will take no further action regarding this matter at this time OR we will proceed with our review 

based on available information). 

USE IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS PROMISED BUT NOT RECEIVED 

Based on your (conversation, telephone conversation, interview, etc.) with (NRC staff 

member(s)) on (date), it was understood that you would provide additional information to 

facilitate our review of your concern(s). To date, we have received no additional information 

from you. Please call (me/Allegation Coordinator name) at the toll free telephone number noted 

below, or contact (me/Allegation Coordinator name) in writing at (Allegation Office address), 

within [ten] days of the date you receive this letter, to arrange for provision of the information. If 

no additional information is received, (we will take no further action regarding this matter at this 

time OR we will proceed with our review based on available information). 

USE FOR REFERRALS TO STATES/AGREEMENT STATES 

Because the NRC does not have jurisdiction over the activity(ies) in the State (Commonwealth) 

of ______ that are discussed in your concern(s), we are providing your concern(s) to the State 

(Commonwealth) of for review and resolution. [USE IF ALLEGER WILL PERMIT 

RELEASE OF HIS/HER IDENTITY TO THE STATE/AGREEMENT STATE] Based on your 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

290

willingness to contact and be contacted by the state, as indicated in your (discussion/phone 

conversation) with (NRC staff member(s)) on (date), we have provided your name and address 

to the State (Commonwealth) so that the State (Commonwealth) may provide feedback to you 

directly regarding this matter. If you are interested in the degree to which the State 

(Commonwealth) of ________ will protect your identity regarding your concerns, you should 

contact the State (Commonwealth) of ________ to discuss this matter. Your contact at the 

State (Commonwealth) of _________ is (provide address/phone number/e-mail address of state 

agency contact). [USE IF ALLEGER WILL NOT PERMIT HIS/HER IDENTITY TO BE 

PROVIDED TO THE STATE/AGREEMENT STATE] Because you have requested that your 

name and address not be provided to the State (Commonwealth), we will request the State 

(Commonwealth) to respond directly to the NRC regarding your concerns. We will inform you of 

the State's (Commonwealth's) response after we receive it. [USE IF UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN 

IF ALLEGER WILL PERMIT HIS/HER IDENTITY TO BE PROVIDED TO THE 

STATE/AGREEMENT STATE] We have attempted but have been unsuccessful in contacting 

you by telephone to determine if it would be acceptable to provide your name and contact 

information to the State (Commonwealth). For this reason, we have not provided your name 

and address to the State (Commonwealth) of regarding this matter and we have 

requested the State (Commonwealth) to respond directly to the NRC regarding your concerns. 

We will inform you of the State's (Commonwealth's) response after we receive it. If after 

receiving this letter, you decide that you would like to contact the State (Commonwealth) 

directly, you may contact the State (Commonwealth) at: (provide State (Commonwealth) contact 

information). 

USE IF A RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER AGENCY IS NEEDED TO RESPOND TO AN 

ALLEGER’S CONCERN 

We have determined that input is needed from (Agency Name) in order for the NRC to provide a 

complete response to your concern(s) related to (subject area). Therefore, we (are 

providing/have provided) these concerns to (Agency Name) for review and response. Your 

name and any other identifying information (will be/has been) excluded from the information that 

(is/was) provided to (Agency Name). We will review (Agency Name's) response to (this/these) 

concerns as part of our evaluation, and provide you with the results of that evaluation. 

USE IF CONCERNS FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER AGENCY 

We have reviewed your concern(s) and determined that the associated activity(ies) (is/are) not 

under NRC regulatory jurisdiction. The agency with jurisdiction in this matter is (Agency Name) 

and we have provided your concern to that agency. For any further information on this matter, 

you may contact (Agency Contact) at (Agency Address). 

USE THIS FOR ALL LETTERS [NOTE: Do not include NRC standard identity protection 

wording indicated in the paragraph below in the acknowledgment letter if the alleger's identity is 

being provided to a State or other agency/entity or if the alleger is considered a "widely known 

alleger" with regard to all of his/her concerns that are being acknowledged.] 

In evaluating your technical7 concern(s), the NRC intends to take all reasonable efforts not to 

disclose your identity to any organization, individual outside the NRC, or the public. It is 

7 If the alleger has also raised discrimination and/or other wrongdoing concerns, it may be clearer to refer to the 

concerns being forwarded by RFI in this paragraph as “technical concerns” vs. “concerns.”
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

291

important to note, particularly if you have raised this issue internally, that individuals can and 

sometimes do surmise the identity of a person who provides information to the NRC because of 

the nature of the information or other factors beyond our control. In such cases, our policy is to 

neither confirm nor deny the individual’s assumption. [INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING 

SENTENCE IF AN RFI IS TO BE ISSUED TO THE LICENSEE] As indicated above, if a written 

request for information is provided to (licensee name) regarding (your technical7 concern(s) OR 

some or all of your technical7 concerns), your name and other identifying information will be 

excluded from the information that is provided to (licensee name). [Do not use qualifying phrase 

"if a request for information is provided to (licensee name)" in the previous sentence if the letter 

has earlier indicated NRC’s intent to send an RFI vs. an option.] Enclosed with this letter is a 

brochure entitled “Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC,” which includes an important 

discussion of the identity protection provided by the NRC regarding these matters as well as 

those circumstances that limit the NRC's ability to protect an alleger’s identity. Please read that 

section of the brochure. [ALTERNATE LANGUAGE FOR REPEAT ALLEGERS - OAC 

DISCRETION] In an earlier letter to you dated (date), pertaining to a concern/concerns you 

raised regarding (subject), you were provided an NRC brochure entitled, “Reporting Safety 

Concerns to the NRC.” The brochure includes information regarding the NRC allegation 

process, identity protection, and the processing of claims of discrimination for raising safety 

concerns. If you need another copy of the brochure, please contact me. [ALTERNATE 

WORDING TO ABOVE SENTENCES REFERENCING BROCHURE AVAILABILITY] However, 

you should be aware that your identity could be disclosed regarding this matter if the NRC 

determines that disclosure is necessary to ensure public health and safety, to respond 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, to support a hearing on 

an NRC enforcement matter, per requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or if 

you have taken actions that are inconsistent with and override the purpose of protecting an 

alleger’s identity.

USE IN PLACE OF ABOVE PARAGRAPH IF ALLEGER IS WIDELY KNOWN WITH RESPECT 

TO ALL CONCERNS OR IN ADDITION TO ABOVE PARAGRAPH IF ALLEGER IS WIDELY 

KNOWN WITH RESPECT TO ONE OR SOME CONCERNS 

(We are aware OR It is our understanding) that you have (notified the media/discussed at a 

press conference on (date), identified at a public meeting on (date)) that you provided your 

concern(s) related to (subject area(s)) to the NRC. As a result, the NRC will be unable to 

protect your identity with regard to (this concern/these concerns). 

USE IF A CONCERN OR CONCERNS INVOLVE A WRONGDOING MATTER OTHER THAN 

ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION 

Also, your identity may be disclosed at the NRC’s discretion in order to pursue an investigation 

of issue(s) involving potential wrongdoing, such as the (subject: e.g., records falsification, 

deliberate misconduct) issue you brought to our attention. 

USE IF A DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WAS PROVIDED BUT WAS DETERMINED NOT 

TO INVOLVE A PRIMA-FACIE SHOWING OF POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION 

We are not initiating an investigation into your assertion of discrimination at this time as 

explained in Enclosure 1 to this letter [NOTE: provide reasons that a prima-facie showing was 

not articulated in Enclosure 1 discussion of discrimination concern]. However, please 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

292

understand that if the NRC initiates an investigation into your discrimination concern in the 

future based on additional clarifying information, your identity would be disclosed as part of that 

investigation since the evaluation of a matter of alleged discrimination without identifying you 

would be extremely difficult. 

Although the NRC is not investigating this matter at this time, please understand that you have 

the right to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) if you believe you have 

been discriminated against for raising safety concerns and you desire a personal remedy, such 

as reinstatement or back pay. In order to protect your right to file a discrimination claim with 

DOL, you must file a written complaint with DOL within 180 days of the date of the alleged 

discriminatory action or the date you received any notice, in writing or otherwise, of an adverse 

personnel action, whichever occurred first. Any such complaint can be filed with DOL Regional 

Offices for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Your complaint must 

describe the safety issues(s) you raised, the resulting adverse personnel action taken against 

you, and the causal relationship between them. If you choose to file a complaint, it should be 

filed with: (INSERT ADDRESS OF APPROPRIATE OSHA REGIONAL OFFICE). 

USE IF THE ALLEGER HAS ESTABLISHED A PRIMA-FACIE SHOWING OF POTENTIAL 

DISCRIMINATION 

The NRC staff has reviewed your complaint of discrimination and has determined that an 

evaluation of your complaint is warranted. The NRC will consider enforcement action against 

NRC-regulated facilities that are found to have discriminated against individuals for raising 

safety concerns. However, please understand that the NRC cannot require that a personal 

remedy be provided to you (e.g., back pay, reinstatement). Means by which you can pursue a 

personal remedy are described later in this letter. 

If you wish, your discrimination concern may be investigated by the NRC Office of Investigations 

(OI). During an investigation, OI gathers testimonial and documentary evidence related to your 

discrimination concern. Since performing such an investigation without identifying you would be 

extremely difficult, please be aware that your name will be disclosed during the course of an 

NRC investigation into your discrimination concern. If, on the basis of the OI investigation 

results, the NRC determines that your discrimination concern is substantiated, the NRC will 

consider enforcement action against (licensee name), as appropriate. 

As an alternative to an investigation of your discrimination concern by OI, you may choose to 

participate in the NRC’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program, which offers mediation in 

the handling of a complaint of discrimination. Mediation is a voluntary process where two 

parties, (you and your employer OR you and your former employer), use an unbiased, neutral 

individual, or mediator, in an attempt to resolve and settle your complaint. If such an agreement 

is reached, the NRC will close your discrimination complaint upon settlement and will not 

perform an investigation. If a settlement is not reached with (your employer OR your former 

employer), the NRC (OI) may initiate an investigation into your complaint of discrimination. As 

mentioned above, the NRC’s ADR program is voluntary, and any participant may end the 

mediation at any time. You should be aware that the NRC’s ADR program allows the licensee 

to submit any negotiated settlement to the NRC for review and acceptance as an equivalent to 

an agreement negotiated through NRC-sponsored mediation, and this may occur with or without 

your consent. Therefore, any settlement you reach with the licensee, which is submitted to 

NRC by the licensee and subsequently approved by the NRC will not result in an NRC 

investigation of your discrimination complaint. Additional information on this program is included 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

293

in the attached brochure, “NRC’s Pre-Investigation ADR Program” and more detailed 

information on the program can be found on our website at http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr.html. 

The NRC has asked Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution (ICR) to aid you and 

(your employer OR your former employer) in resolving your discrimination concern through 

ADR. If you choose to participate in the NRC's ADR program, you must contact ICR directly at 

1-877-733-9415 (toll free). We request that you make a decision regarding your interest in 

attempting mediation via the ADR program as soon as possible or at least within [ten] days of 

the date you receive this letter. You may contact ICR to discuss ADR in general, the NRC's 

ADR program, and any other information you are interested in related to resolving your 

discrimination concern. If you and (your employer OR your former employer) choose to 

participate in the ADR program, ICR will assist you in the selection of a mediator who would 

meet with you and (your employer OR your former employer) in an attempt to settle your 

complaint. If you select a mediator through ICR, there will be no charge to you (or your 

employer OR your former employer) for the mediator's services. If you participate in the ADR 

program, we ask that you complete the program evaluation form (supplied by ICR) at the 

completion of your participation so that we can evaluate the effectiveness of the program. 

You are not required to have legal representation to participate in the NRC’s ADR program. 

However, if you have legal representation or obtain legal representation in the future, the NRC 

will not communicate with your legal representative unless you provide the NRC with your legal 

representative’s name and contact information, and indicate that you want NRC to provide

copies of future correspondence with you to your legal representative or that you want NRC to 

communicate directly with your legal representative. If your legal representative contacts the 

NRC before you provide this information, we will neither confirm nor deny that you contacted the 

NRC since it is our policy to protect the identity of individuals who submit allegations. 

The NRC notes that employers are encouraged to develop similar dispute resolution processes 

internal to their company for use in conjunction with their own employee concerns programs. If 

you resolve and settle your discrimination concern with your (employer OR your former 

employer) your (employer OR former employer) may voluntarily report the settlement to the 

NRC. If NRC is notified of an internal settlement before an NRC OI investigation is initiated, the 

NRC will request a copy of such a settlement agreement (when completed, if negotiations are 

ongoing) from the (employer OR former employer) and review it to determine if it contains any 

restrictive language in violation of NRC employee protection regulations. If no such restrictive 

language exists, in accordance with agency policy, NRC will close the discrimination complaint 

and will not perform an investigation. 

Additionally, please note that, while participation in the NRC's ADR program may result in 

negotiation of the issues which form the basis of your discrimination complaint with (your 

employer OR your former employer) under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 

1974, the timeliness requirement for filing a claim of discrimination with the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL) (180 days) is in no way altered by the NRC’s ADR Program. In this aspect, we 

note that DOL has the authority to order personal remedies in these matters. For this reason, 

the filing of a discrimination complaint with DOL should be considered at the same time you are 

considering use of the NRC ADR program. While there is a likelihood that DOL may choose to 

await the completion of an attempted ADR mediation given the prospect that a mutually 

agreeable settlement may be reached, timely filing of a discrimination complaint with DOL 

assures that DOL will review your discrimination claim in the event that ADR is unsuccessful. In 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

294

order to protect your right to file a discrimination claim with DOL, you must file a written 

complaint with DOL within 180 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory action or the date 

you received any notice, in writing or otherwise, of an adverse personnel action, whichever 

occurred first. Any such complaint can be filed with DOL Regional Offices for the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Your complaint must describe the safety issues(s) 

you raised, the resulting adverse personnel action taken against you, and the causal 

relationship between them. If you choose to file a complaint, it should be filed with: (INSERT 

ADDRESS OF APPROPRIATE OSHA REGIONAL OFFICE). (OPTIONAL: Enclosed for your 

information is a copy of 29 CFR Part 24, DOL’s “Procedures for Handling of Discrimination 

Complaints Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes.”)

USE WHEN ALLEGER HAS BEEN GRANTED CONFIDENTIALITY 

(With respect to your request for confidentiality OR With respect to the Confidentiality 

Agreement you signed), please be assured that the NRC will make every effort to maintain your 

confidentiality while resolving this matter. [INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE IF THE 

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT HAS YET TO BE EXECUTED] Please read the attached 

Confidentiality Agreement, sign and date it, and return it in the self-addressed, stamped 

envelope provided. It is important to note that individuals can and sometimes do surmise the 

identity of a person who provides information to the NRC because of the nature of the 

information or other factors beyond our control. In such cases, our policy is to neither confirm 

nor deny the individual’s assumption. [INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES FOR 

ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION MATTERS] You should be aware that the NRC normally will not 

investigate a case of potential discrimination against an alleger for raising safety issues if the 

alleger is a confidential source. A matter of alleged discrimination cannot be investigated if an 

alleger’s name is kept confidential. 

USE IF AN ALLEGER HAS ALSO PROVIDED ISSUES RELATED TO ALLEGED 

MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF NRC STAFF OR NRC CONTRACTORS 

With respect to your concern(s) regarding potential misconduct on the part of the NRC staff 

(and/or NRC contractors), these matters have been referred to the NRC Office of Inspector 

General (OIG). If you have any questions or other comments on (this matter/these matters), 

you should contact the OIG directly at 1-800-233-3497. [NOTE: If the issue has not been 

formally referred to the OIG after review by appropriate personnel within the affected regional or 

headquarters office, the acknowledgment letter should simply acknowledge the alleger's 

comments and provide OIG contact information as an option.] 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

If a request is filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to your area(s) of 

concern, the information provided will, to the extent consistent with that act, be purged of names 

and other potential identifiers. [FOR ALLEGERS WITHOUT CONFIDENTIALITY] Further, you 

should be aware you are not considered a confidential source unless confidentiality has been 

formally granted in writing. 

[INCLUDE IF NRC BROCHURE WAS NOT REFERENCED EARLIER IN THE 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER] Enclosed with this letter is a brochure entitled “Reporting 

Safety Concerns to the NRC,” which contains information that you may find helpful in 

understanding our process for review of safety concerns. The brochure contains an important 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

295

discussion of the identity protection provided by the NRC regarding these matters as well as 

those circumstances that limit the NRC's ability to protect an alleger's identity. [ADD IF THE 

ALLEGATION INCLUDES A DISCRIMINATION CONCERN] The brochure also includes a 

discussion of the right of an individual to file a complaint with the DOL if the individual believes 

she or he has been discriminated against for raising safety concerns and the individual desires 

a personal remedy. [ALTERNATE LANGUAGE FOR REPEAT ALLEGERS - OAC 

DISCRETION] In an earlier letter to you dated (date), pertaining to a concern/concerns you 

raised regarding (subject), you were provided an NRC brochure entitled, “Reporting Safety 

Concerns to the NRC.” The brochure includes information regarding the NRC allegation 

process, identity protection, and the processing of claims of discrimination for raising safety 

concerns. If you need another copy of the brochure, please contact me. 

Thank you for notifying us of your concern(s). We will advise you when we have completed our 

review. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance, 

please call me toll-free at the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403 (if the alleger resides in the 

geographical area of the action office) OR the (regional/office) toll-free number 

1-800-XXX-XXXX (if the alleger does not reside in the geographical area of the action office) or 

you may provide information to me in writing at (Allegation Office address). [USE THE 

FOLLOWING AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE OAC] You may also communicate with me 

by electronic mail, if you so choose. However, when doing so, please call me in advance or 

provide your phone number in your e-mail message so that I can confirm that you are the 

source of the information. Also, please be advised that the NRC cannot protect the information 

during transmission on the Internet and there is a possibility that someone could read your 

response while it is in transit. My e-mail address is XXX@nrc.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosure(s): As stated 

========================================== 

FORMAT FOR ENCLOSURE 1 TO ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER 

STATEMENT OF CONCERNS ALLEGATION NO. XXX-200X-A-XXXX 

Concern 1: 

Describe the alleger’s first concern. 

Concern 2: 

Describe the alleger’s second concern.

[Repeat for additional concerns] 

========================================= 

USE THE FOLLOWING IN RESPONSE TO A DISCRIMINATION CONCERN IF IT WAS 

DETERMINED THAT THE ALLEGER DID NOT ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF 

DISCRIMINATION. 

In order for the NRC to initiate an investigation into a matter of alleged discrimination pursuant 

to 10 CFR 50.7 (or other appropriate NRC employee protection regulation), a set of facts must 

be presented which demonstrates that: (1) the worker engaged in protected activity (e.g., raised 

a nuclear or radiological safety issue); (2) an adverse personnel action was taken against the 

worker; (3) the employer knew that the worker had engaged in the protected activity; and (4) the 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

296

protected activity was, at least in part, a the reason that the employer took the adverse action. 

We have reviewed the information you provided and note that you have not articulated a pattern 

of facts as described above. [Explain why prima facie was not met, e.g. no evidence that alleger 

engaged in protected activity, no evidence that adverse personnel action was taken, no 

evidence that employer was aware of the protected activity, etc.] For (this reason/these 

reasons), the NRC will not be initiating an investigation into this matter. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

297

Exhibit 13 

Allegation Review Board Worksheet

Considering a Request for Information to the Licensee 

The purpose of this worksheet is to assist the staff in determining whether it should issue a 

request for information (RFI) to a licensee and to support the development of the proposed 

basis for the Allegation Review Board (ARB) assignment of this action. Circumstances may 

exist, as indicated below, that support the use of an RFI in conjunction with an NRC inspection, 

technical review, or investigation activity. The ARB meeting summary shall document the 

specific ARB decision regarding an RFI and the basis for that decision. If the RFI worksheet is 

used to document the ARB decision regarding an RFI, the completed worksheet shall be 

maintained in the allegation file. 

Allegation Number: Affected Concern(s): 

A. Overriding Safety Issue 

Yes No Does the allegation concern represent an overriding safety issue (OSI)? 

Comment: 

B. RFI Inhibiting Conditions 

If the concern does not involve an OSI, consider the validity of the following statements related 

to conditions that would normally inhibit the issuance of an RFI: 

True False The alleger objects to the NRC issuing an RFI, and information cannot be 

released in sufficient detail to the licensee without compromising the 

alleger’s identity.

True False The licensee could compromise an NRC investigation or inspection 

because of knowledge gained from the RFI. 

True False The concern is against senior licensee management such that an 

independent and effective evaluation is unlikely through the use of an RFI. 

True False A Federal or State agency providing the information does not approve of 

the RFI. 

 RFI (i.e., either all of the above statements are “False” or see “Comment” below)

 Inspection or Investigation (i.e., either one or more of the above statements is “True” or 

see “Comment” below)

Comment: 

Note: An RFI will normally be issued to the licensee (verbally first, then in writing) if an OSI exists regardless 

of any other factor noted on this worksheet. In this instance, the consideration of a waiting period for alleger 

feedback on a proposed RFI is waived. Other factors discussed below should be considered to determine if 

conducting an NRC inspection in conjunction with the RFI is preferable.

Note: For the purposes of this worksheet, the term “licensee” refers to any NRC licensee, certificate holder, 

license or certificate applicant, or vendor that may be the subject of an allegation concern, and the term 

“inspection” refers to any NRC inspection or technical review activity. 

Note: If it is ultimately determined that an RFI will be issued but the above conditions may limit the 

effectiveness of the RFI, the ARB should consider NRC inspection or investigation activities to supplement 

information to be obtained from the RFI response.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

298

C. Allegation and Inspection History Consideration 

Consider the validity of the following statements related to the history of, or trends in, 

allegations, NRC inspections, and investigations that may indicate that an NRC inspection or 

investigation is preferable to an RFI or that it should be considered in conjunction with an RFI. 

As needed, the headquarters offices should request assistance from the regional offices in 

obtaining this information. 

True False The action office is aware of problems with the site’s responses to RFIs in 

the last 2 years that could impact the quality of the licensee’s response to 

an RFI related to this concern. 

True False The facility is one of a fleet of plants to which another NRC regional office 

has engaged licensee senior management or has stopped issuing RFIs on 

a temporary basis because of a recent history of inadequate RFI responses 

from the corporate organization. 

True False The action office is aware of allegation trends at the site in the past 2 years, 

whether substantiated or not, that indicate that the NRC should 

independently evaluate the concern(s) (e.g., multiple or repeated 

allegations of a similar nature). 

True False The mid-cycle or end-of-cycle review (reactor licensees) or other 

assessment results indicate problems with the site’s ability to identify and 

resolve problems, which could impact the quality of the licensee’s response 

to an RFI related to this concern. 

RFI (i.e., either all of the above statements are “False” or see “Comment” below)

Inspection or Investigation (i.e., either one of more of the above statements is “True” 

or see “Comment” below) 

Comment: 

D. Inspection Consideration 

Consider the validity of the following statements that might indicate that an NRC inspection or 

investigation of the concern(s) is preferable to an RFI or that it should be considered in 

conjunction with an RFI. 

True False The alleger objects to the NRC issuing an RFI to the licensee (e.g., the 

alleger is concerned that there could be negative repercussions). 

True False The alleger has taken the concern to the licensee with unsatisfactory 

results. 

True False The NRC evaluation can be as, or more, timely and efficient than the 

licensee’s evaluation.

True False The allegation concern can be evaluated during an ongoing inspection or 

one that the NRC expects to conduct in the near future. 

True False The NRC is already evaluating other aspects of the same or similar issues, 

and an evaluation of the allegation concern can be included. 

True False Significant public and Commission interest warrants an independent 

assessment of concern(s). 

True False Other reasons to consider in conducting an inspection. Describe: 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

299

RFI (i.e., either the statements marked “False” collectively suggest an RFI is preferable or 

see “Comment” below)

Inspection or Investigation (i.e., either the statements marked “True” collectively suggest 

an NRC inspection or investigation is preferable or see “Comment” below)

Comment: 

E. Proposal for an ARB-Assigned Action and Basis 

RFI Inspection or Investigation Both 

Basis: 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

300

Exhibit 14 

Sample Allegation Request For Information (RFI) Letter To The Licensee 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this header on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information) 

Licensee management representative XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX

Licensee address 

Dear _________: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently received information concerning activities at 

(site/facility). We request that (licensee name) evaluate the information described in the 

Enclosure to this letter and submit the results of that evaluation to (regional or headquarters 

office). Within 30 days of the date of this letter, we ask that you inform (regional or 

headquarters office contact) in writing of the details of your evaluation and your findings related 

to the validity of the information provided. If (licensee name) determines a concern to be 

substantiated, please discuss (licensee name’s) consideration of appropriate root or apparent 

causes and generic implications of the substantiated concern, and the appropriateness of 

corrective actions taken or planned commensurate with the significance of the issue. 

Additionally, if your evaluation identifies any potential compliance issue with regard to NRC 

regulatory requirements or NRC commitments, please inform us regarding the requirement or 

commitment that may have been violated, the corrective actions taken or planned, and the 

corrective action documentation that addressed the issue. We ask that you reference our 

tracking number (XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX) in your written response and also that you make any 

records of your evaluation available for possible NRC inspection. 

The NRC will review your response to determine whether: (a) the individual conducting the 

investigation was independent of the organization with responsibility for the related functional 

area; (b) the evaluator has sufficient knowledge and experience to conduct a review in the 

related functional area; and (c) the evaluation was of sufficient depth and scope. Your response 

should describe how each of these attributes was satisfied. If individuals were interviewed as 

part of your review, your response should include the basis for determining that the number and 

cross section of individuals interviewed was appropriate to obtain the information necessary to 

fully evaluate the concern(s), and the interview questions used. If your evaluation included a 

sample review of related documentation and/or potentially affected structures, systems, and 

components, your response should include the basis for determining that the selected sample 

size was appropriately representative and adequate to obtain the information necessary to fully 

evaluate the concern(s). The NRC will consider these factors in reviewing the adequacy of your 

evaluation of this/these issue(s) and in developing our conclusions with regard to the concerns 

provided in the Enclosure. 

We request that your response only be sent to (regional or headquarters office contact) at the 

following address: [Name and address of regional or headquarters office contact]. No other 

copies should be sent to the NRC, i.e., your response should not be docketed or otherwise 

submitted to the NRC Document Control Desk. We also request that your response contain no 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this footer on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

301

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this header on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information) 

Addressee XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX

personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information. If personal privacy or proprietary 

information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide a bracketed copy of 

your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of 

your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you 

must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and 

provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of 

information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information 

required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or 

financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable 

response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21. 

[FOR RFI THAT CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED NONSAFEGUARDS INFORMATION (SUNSI), INCLUDE THIS PARAGRAPH] The information in 

the Enclosure to this letter contains SUNSI Security-Related Information in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.390(d)(1) and its disclosure to unauthorized individuals could present a security 

vulnerability. Please mark the top of each page of your response with “Security-Related 

Information – Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390,” and follow the instructions for withholding 

information contained in 10 CFR 2.390 (b)(1). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 (b)(1)(ii), NRC 

is waiving the requirement for your response to be accompanied by an affidavit. 

This letter and its enclosure should be controlled and distribution limited to personnel with a 

“need to know.” The response requested by this letter and the accompanying enclosure are not 

subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511. 

Lastly, we ask that you contact (responsible NRC supervisor) as your review effort begins, to 

assure a common understanding of the issues discussed in the Enclosure, and the NRC’s 

expectations for follow-up and response and to discuss your plan to evaluate the issues. 

Please contact (regional or headquarters office contact) at (telephone #) with this information 

within 10 working days and with any additional questions you may have at this time concerning 

this request. 

Sincerely, 

[NRC manager as designated by 

region/headquarters office management] 

Enclosure: As stated 

bcc w/encl: Allegation File No. XXX-YYYY-A-XXXX 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this footer on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

302

SAMPLE ENCLOSURE TO RFI LETTER TO THE LICENSEE REGARDING AN ALLEGATION 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this header on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information) 

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 

(Use this header on each page of the RFI enclosure if RFI DOES NOT contain SUNSI SecurityRelated Information) 

Issue 1: XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX

The NRC has received information that ... (for each concern, provide as much information as 

possible to enable the licensee to perform an effective review. The information is to be provided 

in a manner that does not include the identity of the alleger or information that could permit the 

licensee to identify the alleger, and that does not compromise an ongoing NRC investigation or 

inspection.) 

[Note: If the allegation is received in writing, the alleger’s incoming correspondence normally 

should not be forwarded with the RFI. Rather, the alleger’s concerns are summarized in this 

enclosure, including being rewritten so as not to use the alleger’s exact wording. If the ARB 

determines that the safety implications of an allegation concern warrant providing a copy of the 

original information supplied by the alleger with the RFI rather than an NRC summary, every 

effort should be made to notify the alleger of the NRC’s proposed action and obtain agreement 

from the alleger, in writing, if possible. If the alleger objects to the inclusion of his/her original 

correspondence in the RFI, NRC should acknowledge the alleger’s feedback and, if possible, 

come to an agreement with the alleger as to the content of the information that will be 

transmitted. If the alleger objects to the inclusion of his/her original correspondence in the RFI 

and NRC does not agree with the alleger’s objection because the matter represents an 

overriding safety issue, the NRC may include the alleger’s incoming correspondence in the RFI 

over the alleger’s objection. The results of any such interface with the alleger should be 

documented in the allegation file.] 

In addition to the response information requested in the cover letter, we ask that your response 

address or include the following: 

Examples of additional detail that may be requested: 

...answers to the following questions related to this issue

...a description of the process that monitors this issue

...a description of or a copy of the procedure that governs this activity

...a diagram that shows how the equipment interfaces with other systems

[Note: If the alleger has previously raised the issue internally to the licensee and was not 

satisfied with the licensee’s feedback, and does not object to NRC providing a written RFI to the 

licensee regarding the concern, the letter to the licensee should, in addition to describing the 

concern, describe the asserted inadequacy in the licensee’s internal response efforts.]

Please contact (responsible NRC supervisor) as your review effort begins within 10 working 

days of receiving this letter to assure a common understanding of the issues in this Enclosure 

and NRC’s expectations for follow-up and response and to discuss your plan to evaluate the 

issues. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

303

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 

(Use this footer on each page of the RFI enclosure if RFI DOES NOT contain SUNSI SecurityRelated Information) 

OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

(Use this footer on each page if the RFI contains SUNSI Security-Related Information)
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

304

Exhibit 15 

Checklist for NRC Staff Review 

of Licensee Response to an Allegation Request for Information 

The purpose of this checklist is to assist the staff in evaluating the adequacy of a licensee’s 

response to an allegation request for information (RFI) and in independently verifying aspects of 

the information provided by the licensee and to support the development of the proposed basis 

for additional staff actions if the NRC determines that the licensee’s response is inadequate, 

inaccurate, or otherwise unacceptable. 

 Allegation Number: Affected Concern(s): 

A. Determining the Adequacy of the Licensee’s Response to an Allegation RFI 

Evaluator Independence 

Yes No Does the relationship between the individual(s) chosen by the licensee to 

evaluate the concern(s) and the concern(s) being evaluated allow for 

appropriate objectivity (e.g., a third party or internal evaluator but not in the 

same management chain as those involved in the concern(s))? 

Comments: 

Evaluator Competence 

Yes No Based on the information provided, does it appear that the evaluator has a 

sufficient level of knowledge and experience to conduct a review of the 

related functional area? Comments: 

Depth and Scope of Evaluation 

Yes No Are all RFI-related concerns addressed? 

Yes No Is the evaluation rigor commensurate with the level of concern detail 

provided? For example, if appropriate, did the evaluation include a review of 

the extent of condition, an assessment of the root or apparent cause, or 

generic considerations? 

Yes No Does the evaluation support the conclusions provided by the licensee? 

Note: The term “licensee” in the worksheet refers to any NRC licensee, certificate holder, license or 

certificate applicant, or vendor that may be the subject of an allegation concern.

Note: Use best judgment for smaller organizations when clear management chain 

independence may not be possible.

Note: “Yes” answers normally indicate that the licensee’s response to an RFI is adequate, whereas 

“No” answers indicate that additional action may be necessary. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

305

Yes No Did the evaluation consider all affected personnel, groups, and departments? 

For example, if interviews were conducted, did the licensee describe the 

basis for the number and cross-section of individuals interviewed and is the 

basis adequate? Were the interview questions appropriate? 

Yes No N/A If the NRC asked additional specific questions, are they answered 

satisfactorily? 

Yes No N/A If the RFI referenced the names of specific individuals, did the 

licensee contact those individuals or appropriately consider their 

involvement in the allegation concern? 

Yes No N/A If the RFI referenced specific documentation, did the licensee 

evaluate that documentation or appropriately consider it in the 

evaluation of the allegation concern? 

Yes No N/A If the licensee reviewed a sample of related documentation or a 

sample of potentially affected structures, systems, and 

components, did the licensee describe the sample and provide the 

basis for determining that the sample size was appropriately 

representative? 

Comments: 

Effectiveness of Corrective Actions 

Yes No N/A If applicable, did the licensee take appropriate immediate 

corrective actions? 

Yes No N/A If applicable, were operability and reportability determinations 

appropriate? 

Yes No N/A If applicable, were appropriate corrective actions proposed? 

Yes No N/A If applicable, were issues entered into the corrective action 

program? 

Comments: 

NRC Violations (substantiated concerns only) 

Yes No N/A If the substantiated concern represents a violation, did the 

licensee appropriately acknowledge and articulate the potential 

violation in response to the RFI? Comments: 

B. NRC Independent Review Effort 

The NRC staff that evaluates the licensee RFI response should attempt to independently 

validate aspects of the information provided by the licensee. Indicate any of the following that 

apply: 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

306

Additional questions posed to the licensee.

Performed or coordinated an independent inspection or technical review activity to verify 

a condition indicated in the response. 

Reviewed the results of recently conducted NRC inspections in the functional area 

related to the allegation concerns. 

Verified the existence and applicability of technical references noted in the response.

Verified the existence and applicability of procedures referenced in the response. 

Ensured that the revision number referenced is appropriate.

Verified the existence and content of corrective action program documentation 

referenced in the response. 

Checked calculations noted in the response.

Other. Describe: 

Comments: 

C. CONCLUSION 

Adequate RFI Response Inadequate RFI Response

Basis: 

Note: Notify the responsible branch chief and the Office Allegation Coordinator of the results of this 

review.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

307

Exhibit 16 

OI Investigation Priority 

HIGH PRIORITY NORMAL PRIORITY LOW PRIORITY

Matter, if proven, is of very significant regulatory concern. The potential consequences for safety, given the position 

of the person(s) involved, any apparent lack of integrity of that person(s), and the safety significance of the 

underlying matter, if the violation should be found willful, are high and likely would result in prompt regulatory action 

by NRC. The person(s) involved in the willful violation very likely would be removed from licensed activities for a 

substantial period. Normally, it would be expected that the violation, without considering the issue of intent, would not 

likely be categorized at less than a Severity Level III or, if it would be categorized at less than a Level III, it would 

involve management at the level of a mid-level manager or above (this means if willfulness is proven, it likely will be 

at least a Severity Level II violation).

Matter, if proven, is of significant regulatory 

concern. The person causing the willful violation 

may be removed from licensed activities. The 

potential consequence for safety is of concern. 

Normally it would be expected that the violation, 

without considering the issue of intent, would not 

likely result in a Severity Level I, II, or III violation 

except a Severity Level III violation excluding the 

examples of a high priority matter or a matter 

covered under normal priority as indicated below 

(this means if willfulness is proven, it will likely be 

at least a Severity Level III violation).

Matter, if proven, is of concern but does not 

rise to the significance of a high or normal 

priority. The person causing the willful 

violation would not likely be removed from 

licensed activities

Licensee or contractor manager (second line supervisor or above), reactor operator, or radiation safety officer (RSO) 

directing, performing, or condoning (meaning individual is aware of the apparent willfulness of the violation and does 

not act to report or stop it) any deliberate violation, including providing false information to the NRC or creating false 

licensee records, that may raise an integrity issue calling into question NRC's reasonable assurance.

Any individual directing, performing, or condoning a deliberate violation in which, without consideration of intent, the 

underlying violation is at least of significant regulatory concern and would be categorized at Severity Level I, II, or III. 

Any individual knowingly providing incomplete and inaccurate information to NRC or a licensee with the purpose of 

influencing a significant regulatory decision such as a favorable restart decision, operability decision, issuance of a 

license amendment, not proceeding with an escalated enforcement action, or issuance of a notice of enforcement 

discretion. 

Any individual deliberately covering up a matter so that a required report was not made to NRC in which it would 

have been likely for NRC to have promptly (within several days) sent inspectors or issued correspondence to the 

licensee to follow up on the matter if NRC had known of the information, or in which the cover-up was to prevent 

identification of a significant matter during an NRC inspection. 

Any individual willfully providing inaccurate or incomplete information to NRC, to a licensee, or creating false records 

that in fact cause a wrong decision to be made by either NRC or a licensee (i.e., if accurate or complete information 

had been provided, a substantively different decision would have been made with regard to regulatory or safety 

significance; the inaccurate information in fact had an influence). 

Any individual tampering with vital equipment at a power reactor that indicates a potential act of sabotage. 

Any individual suspected of a deliberate violation, which would otherwise be categorized as a normal priority, were it 

not for the need for an immediate investigation because there are indications that evidence may be lost or tampered 

with. 

Allegations of discrimination:

- resulting from the of provision of information regarding nuclear safety or regulatory issues directly to the NRC 

- caused by a licensee or contractor, mid-level manager, or above (consistent with the current enforcement policy 

classification of Severity Level I or II violations)

- resulting from raising concerns of degraded or non-conforming conditions that if true, would impact the 

operability of a safety-related structure, system, or component, or safeguards equipment

- that appear particularly blatant or egregious 

Other matters to which, because of the potential regulatory significance, a regional administrator or office director with 

the concurrence of a Deputy EDO assigns a high priority.

Any individual directing, performing, or condoning 

(meaning the individual is aware of the apparent 

willfulness of the violation and does not act to 

report or stop it) a deliberate violation in which 

without consideration of intent, the underlying 

violation would be categorized at a Severity Level 

IV or Green violation, and the violation was either 

NRC-identified, or involves a supervisor or a 

licensed operator, or the licensee has not taken 

sufficient corrective action (including sufficient 

disciplinary action).

Cases involving discrimination not amounting to a 

high priority. 

Any individual providing information, knowing it is 

incomplete and inaccurate, directly or indirectly to 

NRC or in records (if it is a relatively isolated 

matter or not a significant record) maintained by a 

licensee or deliberately covering up a matter not 

required to be reported to prevent identification 

during an NRC inspection. 

Licensee officials directing, performing, or 

condoning violations in careless disregard of 

regulatory requirements in which the underlying 

violation, without consideration of intent, would be 

categorized at a Severity Level I, II, or III. 

Willful failure to submit a required report to NRC in 

a matter not considered a high priority. 

Relatively isolated deliberate failure to file a Form 

241, "Report of Proposed Activities in 

Non-Agreement States," notwithstanding the 

examples considered a high priority.

The situation in which, without consideration

of intent, the underlying violation would be 

characterized as a minor violation OR as an 

SL IV or Green violation for situations that 

are licensee-identified, involve only low level 

non-supervisory personnel, and for which the 

licensee has taken sufficient corrective action 

(including significant disciplinary action 

against the responsible individual(s).

Relatively isolated falsification of a record or 

falsification of records that are not significant.

Violations caused by careless disregard not 

covered in higher priorities.

Licensee- or contractor-identified willful 

violations of limited safety significance 

committed by individuals holding relatively low 

level positions. 

For some circumstances of potential 

wrongdoing considered to be of low priority, 

the ARB, with OI concurrence, may 

determine that initiation of an investigation is 

not recommended. Such a determination will 

be made by the ARB on a case-by-case 

basis, considering the involved employee’s 

position within the organization, the 

significance of the safety issue underlying the 

potential wrongdoing, and the 

comprehensiveness of corrective actions 

taken by the licensee.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

308

Exhibit 17 

Sample Allegation Status Letter 

(Alleger’s Name and Address) XXXX-200X-A-XXXX

SUBJECT: Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding (facility name) 

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. (alleger's last name): 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

This letter pertains to the concern(s) you raised to the NRC in your (letter of, electronic mail 

message dated, conversation with (NRC staff member) on, interview with (NRC staff member) 

on, meeting with the resident inspector on, etc.) (date), regarding (general concern reference, 

e.g., maintenance issues, operations issues and alleged discrimination, etc.) at (facility name). 

(Use the following sentences, as appropriate, if the alleger provided information in addition to 

that provided in the initial correspondence or contact.) In addition to the information you 

provided on (initial allegation receipt date), you also (called (NRC staff member(s)), wrote to the 

NRC, met with (NRC staff member(s))) on (date). In/During this/these subsequent (letter(s), 

conversation(s), meeting(s)), you provided additional information regarding (general additional 

concern reference).

USE IF ALL CONCERNS ARE STILL OPEN 

Your concern(s) ((is/are) being reviewed by NRC) OR ((Licensee name) was requested to 

provide a written response to your concern(s) for NRC evaluation). We are reviewing (licensee 

name’s) response to determine if any additional action by NRC is appropriate. When we have 

completed our review, we will notify you of our findings, actions, and the final evaluation of your 

concern(s). 

USE IF, AFTER PRIOR DISCUSSION WITH THE ALLEGER, THE ARB DETERMINES THAT 

PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE ALLEGATION-RELATED INSPECTION OR INVESTIGATION 

IS PLANNED (AND THIS WAS NOT DISCUSSED IN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER 

OR A PREVIOUS STATUS LETTER) 

Allegation-related correspondence is not normally placed on the public record. However, as 

part of our response to your concern(s) and as discussed with you on (date), we plan to publicly 

discuss that our (inspection/investigation) is related to an allegation to afford others an 

opportunity to bring pertinent information to our attention. The NRC believes this will further the 

agency’s mission by (state reason for public dissemination). Your name and any other 

identifying information will be excluded from the information that is discussed. In your 

conversation with (NRC employee name) on (date), you indicated that you would not object to 

the NRC publicly discussing that the (inspection/investigation) is related to concerns raised 

through the NRC allegation program. Please contact (me/Allegation Coordinator name) at the 

toll free telephone number noted below if you have any objections at this time to the NRC 

disclosing the fact that our (inspection/investigation) activities are related to an allegation 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (Note: Use only on the first page) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

309

assessment. We will consider any objections that you may have before doing so. If you do not 

contact us within [ten] days of the date you receive this letter, it is our intention to proceed with 

our plans to publicly discuss that our (inspection/investigation) is related to an allegation. 

USE IF SOME CONCERNS ARE CLOSED WHILE OTHERS ARE STILL OPEN 

We have completed our review of (some, XX number) of your concerns, as indicated in the 

Enclosure to this letter. (On a separate enclosure (see sample Enclosure), restate each 

concern and describe the NRC evaluation and conclusions for every issue for which NRC efforts 

have been completed since the last correspondence with the alleger.) (Use the following 

sentence if concern results are documented in an inspection report.) We note that detailed 

results of NRC inspection efforts regarding this/these concern(s) are further documented in 

NRC Inspection Report (XX-XXX/20XX-XXX) which has been enclosed for your information. 

The NRC staff (is continuing with its review of your other concern(s) OR has requested a written 

a response from (licensee) regarding your other concern(s) OR is reviewing (licensee name’s) 

response to your concern(s), etc.). When we have completed our review, we will notify you of 

our findings, actions, and the final evaluation of your concern(s). 

FOR ALLEGATION CONCERNS INVOLVING SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

[If any of the concerns being closed in the status letter are security-related, refer to Enclosure 

20, “Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Security-Related Concerns),” for appropriate cover 

letter wording depending on the security concern category.] 

USE IF A DISCRIMINATION CONCERN WAS INVESTIGATED AND NOT SUBSTANTIATED 

BY OI, BUT THE DISCRIMINATION ISSUE IS OPEN IN THE DOL PROCESS 

The NRC Office of Investigations (OI) initiated an investigation to determine [if you were 

discriminated against for (briefly describe protected activity)]. The results of the OI investigation 

were documented in OI Report No. dated (date) . The OI investigation concluded that 

there was not sufficient evidence developed during the investigation to substantiate that 

[discrimination] occurred. (NOTE: Categorical statements, such as ...”The NRC concluded that 

discrimination did not occur”.....should not be used.) However, because DOL review is still in 

progress, the NRC will not make a final agency decision regarding this matter until the final DOL 

decision has been rendered and NRC has had an opportunity to review it to determine if it will 

affect the conclusion of the OI investigation. 

We are providing the results of the OI investigation to the parties involved in the DOL review 

related to your discrimination concern. [A copy of the synopsis of the OI report] OR [A summary 

of the results of the OI investigation] OR [a redacted copy of the OI report] is enclosed. Please 

note that the complete OI investigation report, including supporting documentation, may be 

made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction 

of information pursuant to the FOIA. Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance 

with 10 CFR 9.23, Requests for Records. 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

Thank you for notifying us of your concerns. We will advise you when we have completed our 

review. If I can be of further assistance, please call me toll-free at the NRC Safety Hotline at 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

310

1-800-695-7403 (if the alleger resides in the geographical area of the action office) OR the 

(regional/office) toll-free number 1-800-XXX-XXXX (if the alleger does not reside in the 

geographical area of the action office). You may also provide information to me in writing at 

(Allegation Office address). [USE THE FOLLOWING AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE OAC] 

You may also communicate with me by electronic mail, if you so choose. However, when doing 

so, please call me in advance or provide your phone number in your e-mail message so that I 

can confirm that you are the source of the information. Also, please be advised that the NRC 

cannot protect the information during transmission on the Internet and there is a possibility that 

someone could read your response while it is in transit. My e-mail address is XXX@nrc.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosure(s): As stated 

============================================= 

IF CONCERNS WERE CLOSED SINCE THE LAST LETTER TO THE ALLEGER, PROVIDE 

THE CLOSURE INFORMATION FOR THOSE CONCERNS IN AN ENCLOSURE TO THE 

STATUS LETTER AS DESCRIBED BELOW 

FORMAT FOR STATUS LETTER ENCLOSURE DESCRIBING NRC EVALUATION OF 

ALLEGATION CONCERNS 

RESPONSE TO CONCERNS 

ALLEGATION NO. XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX

Concern 1: 

Restate the alleger’s concern as provided in the acknowledgment letter, as modified by the 

alleger, or as clarified by the alleger (if the alleger provided clarifying information to better 

describe his/her concern during the course of NRC’s review).

Response to Concern 1: 

[Provide a direct answer to each of the closed concerns, stating what was evaluated, how it was 

evaluated, and providing NRC’s conclusions regarding the validity of the concern. It is 

preferable that an overall conclusion be provided indicating that the concern was substantiated, 

unsubstantiated, or partially substantiated, as long as that overall conclusion is well supported 

by the accompanying discussion regarding the evaluation of the concern. However, if providing 

such an overall conclusion will be confusing to the alleger (e.g., if aspects of the concern were 

substantiated, but the alleged impropriety or inadequacy was not found to be valid), alternate 

wording may be used, such as... “while NRC was able to substantiate that certain 

(facts/statements/conditions regarding _____) were true, NRC was unable to confirm or validate 

an impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activity.” (If appropriate add: We 

have documented our findings in (inspection report number, or other document citation) dated 

____________. A copy of the relevant section(s) of the report/document is/are enclosed.] 

FOR A CLOSED CONCERN THAT INVOLVED AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE 

[If an RFI was sent to the licensee, the documentation of allegation concern closure should 

reference the feedback provided by the licensee but should also distinctly describe NRC’s 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

311

evaluation and conclusions regarding the concern based on all pertinent information, including 

the licensee’s RFI response. Specifically, in addition to restating the alleger’s concern, the 

concern response should separately describe (1) the licensee’s evaluation and response and 

(2) NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response and NRC’s overall conclusions regarding the 

validity of the concern. The description of NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response should 

articulate any NRC staff independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted 

to validate aspects of the licensee’s response.]

FOR CLOSED ALLEGATION CONCERNS INVOLVING SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION 

[If any of the concerns being closed in the status letter are security-related, refer to Enclosure 

20, “Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Security-Related Concerns),” for appropriate 

response wording depending on the security concern category.] 

[Repeat for Additional Concerns] 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

312

Exhibit 18 

Sample Closure Letter to Alleger 

(For Other Than Security Concerns) 

Alleger’s Name and Address XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX

SUBJECT: Concern(s) You Raised to the NRC Regarding (Site/Facility) 

Dear (Alleger’s Name):

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

The NRC has completed its follow up in response to the concern(s) you brought to our attention 

on (date) regarding (site/facility). You were concerned about (brief summary of concerns) OR 

Your concerns were related to (brief reference to functional area(s), e.g., operations, operator 

qualification, health physics program implementation, maintenance backlog, plant configuration 

control, etc.). Enclosure 1 to this letter restates your concern(s) and describes the NRC’s 

review and conclusions with regard to (that/each) concern. 

SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING FOR THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IF THE ALLEGER FAILED 

TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AS NEEDED OR REQUESTED 

This letter refers to our letter to you dated ____________, in which we requested that you 

contact us to provide additional information regarding your concern(s) related to (general 

description of concern(s)) at (site/facility). You discussed (this/these) concern(s) (in your letter 

dated (date)) (during your conversation with _____ on (date)). (If additional telephone or 

personal contacts occurred, refer to them here.) Since you have not contacted us to provide the 

additional information we requested, the NRC plans no further action regarding this/these 

matter(s). (Add the following sentence, if appropriate.) (We have, however, alerted our 

inspectors to your general concerns so that they can pay particular attention to those areas 

during their routine inspections.) 

USE IF, AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE ALLEGER, IT WAS AGREED THAT NRC WILL 

DISCUSS THE ALLEGATION EVALUATION AND RESULTS IN A PUBLIC FORUM 

Allegation-related correspondence is not normally placed on the public record. However, as 

part of our response to your concern(s) we plan to publicly discuss the results of our evaluation 

by (communication vehicle). The NRC believes this will further the agency’s mission by (state

reason for public dissemination). Your name and any other identifying information will be 

excluded from the information that is released. In your conversation with (NRC employee 

name) on (date), you indicated that you would not object to the NRC publicly discussing the 

results of our evaluation of this (these) concern(s). Please contact (me/Allegation Coordinator 

name) at the toll free telephone number noted below if you have any objections at this time to 

the NRC disclosing the results of our assessment and the fact that they were raised in the 

allegation program. We will consider any objections that you may have before doing so. If you 

do not contact us within [ten] days of the date you receive this letter, it is our intention to 

proceed with our plans to publicly discuss the NRC’s allegation evaluation and results. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

313

USE IF THE ALLEGATION INVOVLED A WRONGDOING/DISCRIMINATION CONCERN 

THAT WAS INVESTIGATED AND SUBSTANTIATED 

The NRC Office of Investigations (OI) initiated an investigation to determine [if you were 

discriminated against for (briefly describe protected activity)] OR [if wrongdoing occurred related 

to (describe potential wrongdoing activity)]. The results of the OI investigation were 

documented in OI Report No. dated (date) . The NRC has concluded, based on the 

results of the OI investigation, that your [discrimination/wrongdoing) concern was substantiated. 

[Regulatory action in regard to this substantiated concern is being addressed through the NRC 

Enforcement process.] OR [NRC has issued (discuss enforcement action) to the licensee with 

regard to this substantiated concern.] Please note that the complete OI investigation report, 

including supporting documentation, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information pursuant to the FOIA. Requests 

under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23, Requests for Records. 

USE IF THE ALLEGATION INVOVLED A WRONGDOING/DISCRIMINATION CONCERN 

THAT WAS INVESTIGATED BUT NOT SUBSTANTIATED (DOL review re: discrimination 

issue, if applicable, is closed) 

The NRC Office of Investigations (OI) initiated an investigation to determine [if you were 

discriminated against for (briefly describe protected activity)] OR [if wrongdoing occurred related 

to (describe potential wrongdoing activity)]. The results of the OI investigation were 

documented in OI Report No. dated (date) . The NRC has concluded, based on the 

results of the OI investigation, that there was not sufficient evidence developed during the 

investigation to substantiate that [discrimination] OR [wrongdoing] occurred. (NOTE: 

Categorical statements, such as ...”The NRC concluded that discrimination (or wrongdoing) did 

not occur”.....should not be used.) Please note that the complete OI investigation report, 

including supporting documentation, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information pursuant to the FOIA. Requests 

under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23, Requests for Records. 

USE FOR ALL LETTERS 

Allegations are an important source of information in support of the NRC’s safety mission. We 

take our safety responsibility to the public seriously and will continue to do so within the bounds 

of our lawful authority. We believe that our actions have been responsive to your concerns. 

(USE NEXT SENTENCE IN CASES WHERE WE HAVE NOT SUPPORTED THE ALLEGER’S 

CONCERNS - otherwise, remove it.) If, however, new information is provided that suggests that 

our conclusions should be altered, we will reevaluate that information to determine if additional 

evaluation is indicated. Should you have any additional questions, or if the NRC can be of 

further assistance, please call me toll-free at the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403 (if the 

alleger resides in the geographical area of the action office) OR the (regional/office) toll-free 

number 1-800-XXX-XXXX (if the alleger does not reside in the geographical area of the action 

office) or you may provide information to me in writing at (Allegation Office address). [USE THE 

FOLLOWING AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE OAC] You may also communicate with me 

CERTIFIED MAIL or Other Appropriate Carrier 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (Note: This statement should appear on the first page and 

the official record copy.) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

314

 by electronic mail, if you so choose. However, when doing so, please call me in advance or 

provide your phone number in your e-mail message so that I can confirm that you are the 

source of the information. Also, please be advised that the NRC cannot protect the information 

during transmission on the Internet and there is a possibility that someone could read your 

response while it is in transit. My e-mail address is XXX@nrc.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosure(s): As stated 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

315

FORMAT FOR ENCLOSURE DESCRIBING NRC EVALUATION OF ALLEGER’S CONCERNS

RESPONSE TO CONCERNS 

ALLEGATION NO. XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX

Concern 1: 

Restate the alleger’s concern as provided in the acknowledgment letter, as modified by the 

alleger, or as clarified by the alleger (if the alleger provided clarifying information to better 

describe his/her concern during the course of NRC’s review).

Response to Concern 1: 

(Provide a direct answer to each of the alleger’s concerns, stating what was evaluated, how it 

was evaluated, and providing NRC’s conclusions regarding the validity of the concern. It is 

preferable that an overall conclusion be provided indicating that the concern was substantiated, 

unsubstantiated, or partially substantiated, as long as that overall conclusion is well supported 

by the accompanying discussion regarding the evaluation of the concern. However, if providing 

such an overall conclusion will be confusing to the alleger (e.g., if aspects of the concern were 

substantiated, but the alleged impropriety or inadequacy was not found to be valid), alternate 

wording may be used, such as... “while NRC was able to substantiate that certain 

(facts/statements/conditions regarding _____) were true, NRC was unable to confirm or validate 

an impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activity.” (If appropriate add: We 

have documented our findings in (inspection report number, or other document citation) dated 

____________. A copy of the relevant section(s) of the report/document is/are enclosed.) 

FOR ANY CONCERN THAT INVOLVED AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE

[If an RFI was sent to the licensee, the documentation of allegation concern closure should 

reference the feedback provided by the licensee but should also distinctly describe NRC’s 

evaluation and conclusions regarding the concern based on all pertinent information, including 

the licensee’s RFI response. Specifically, in addition to restating the alleger’s concern, the 

concern response should separately describe (1) the licensee’s evaluation and response and 

(2) NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response and NRC’s overall conclusions regarding the 

validity of the concern. The description of NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response should 

articulate NRC staff independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted to 

validate aspects of the licensee’s response.]

[Repeat for Additional Concerns] 

Suggested Wording for Closure Letter Responses to Certain Types of Concerns 

If NRC Action Is Complete and the Concern Involved 10 CFR 2.390 Information, in Whole or in 

Part, Include the Following in the Concern Response: 

“Your concern dealt with (proprietary information, personal privacy matters about another 

individual, medical records, etc.) and the details are exempt from disclosure to you or the public 

in general, so we are unable to provide you with specific details related to our evaluation.” (Add 

a brief statement as to whether or not the concern was substantiated, unsubstantiated, or 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

316

partially substantiated without providing specific details of the findings.) (If the concern 

involved security-related information, refer to Enclosure 20, “Sample Closure Letter to 

Alleger (For Security-Related Concerns),” for appropriate response wording depending 

on the security concern).] 

If OI Returns a Potential Wrongdoing Issue, Including Employee Discrimination to the Staff for 

Lack of Resources or Based on Priority, Include the Following in the Concern Response: 

“On the basis of our review of your concern of (describe wrongdoing concern) and other cases 

needing investigation by the NRC, the NRC will not be expending further investigatory efforts on 

the potential wrongdoing aspects of your concern. This is not a finding that your wrongdoing 

concern does not have merit. Rather it is recognition that the NRC must focus its limited 

investigatory resources on cases of higher priority. (Explain what was done with the technical 

aspect of the wrongdoing concern (e.g., “The staff reviewed the impact on safety of the alleged 

falsified record and determined...,” etc.). (For discrimination cases only). Accordingly, absent a 

finding of discrimination by DOL (if applicable), or any additional substantial information and/or 

evidence from you that would support your discrimination concern(s), the staff plans no further 

follow up on the concern you provided to the NRC.” 

Discussion of Enforcement/Assessment Process Outcomes: 

While it is appropriate to indicate in response to an alleger’s concern whether the NRC’s 

evaluation of the concern identified a violation of NRC requirements or an ROP finding, it is not 

imperative that the alleger be informed of the specific enforcement action taken or finding 

categorization via the ROP. In other words, it is sufficient, in most instances, to indicate that a 

violation or finding was identified and that the categorization of the violation or finding and the 

licensee’s follow up activities will be determined by the Enforcement Process or the Reactor 

Oversight Process. However, if the violation or finding has already been determined or 

categorized, and responsible staff believe that providing specific information about the NRC 

violation or finding will improve the concern response, this information may be discussed in the 

closure letter. With regard to a substantiated discrimination concern in particular, it is logical 

that the alleger would have an interest in any specific NRC regulatory action taken against the 

licensee. The following examples of closure letter wording apply to different types of violations 

and findings: 

1. Concern Resulting in a Minor Violation Not Being Documented in an Inspection Report

The safety significance of the violation of [briefly discuss identified violation] was evaluated 

by the NRC and found to be minor. The licensee has been informed of this matter and has 

(entered this matter into the corrective action program, initiated/taken corrective actions, 

etc.). Minor violations represent items of low safety significance and are not subject to formal 

enforcement action or documentation by the NRC. Therefore, this minor violation will not be 

documented in an inspection report, and no further regulatory action is planned. 

2. Concern Resulting in the Issuance of a Non-Cited Violation

During the NRC (inspection/investigation) of this matter, a violation of NRC requirements was 

identified. The NRC categorized the issue as a Non-Cited Violation (NCV) because the issue 

had limited safety significance, was not repetitive, and was entered into the licensee’s 

Corrective Action Program. (Licensee name) is required to correct the NCV. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

317

3. Concern Resulting in the Issuance of a Notice of Violation (and/or a Civil Penalty)

During the NRC (inspection/investigation) of this matter, a violation of NRC requirements

was identified. The NRC issued a Notice of Violation (and Proposed Imposition of Civil

Penalty in the amount of ($_________)) to the licensee (attached). (Licensee name) is

required to inform us of the corrective actions it has taken or plans to take regarding the

identified violation. Our inspectors will continue to monitor (licensee name’s) activities to

ensure proper resolution of this matter.

4. Concern Resulting in the Identification of an Apparent Violation that the NRC Is Considering

for Escalated Enforcement Action

During the NRC (inspection/investigation), an apparent violation of NRC requirements was

identified. The NRC has notified (licensee name) of this issue (attached) and has given

(licensee name) the opportunity to respond to the apparent violation in writing or to

participate in a pre-decisional enforcement conference before NRC makes its enforcement

decision. If NRC subsequently concludes that significant enforcement action is warranted,

the action will be made publicly available at a later time. We will continue our oversight of

this matter to ensure proper resolution.

Sample Closure Letter Wording Related to an Offsite Emergency Preparedness Concern that 

has been Referred to FEMA: 

As indicated in our previous correspondence to you dated (date), we contacted the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assist in reviewing the issue. In a letter dated 

(date of FEMA referral response), FEMA provided the results of their review and evaluation of 

the issue. Based on the information you provided to us and additional information provided by 

FEMA, the NRC staff (has substantiated/was unable to substantiate) your concern. (If 

concern(s) are substantiated, add the following) Specifically, the staff substantiated (give 

description of substantiation). The NRC will pursue the substantiated concern(s) with the 

licensee. Any actions deemed necessary will be taken in accordance with the NRC 

Enforcement process. 

Unsubstantiated Discrimination Concerns: 

Similar to a “chilling effect” concern provided by a single individual, an alleger providing a 

discrimination concern is offering his/her personal reaction to an event/action that he/she 

believed to be discriminatory in nature. Therefore, to make a categorical statement in the 

closure letter to the alleger that “discrimination was not substantiated” can be confusing since 

the alleger may continue to feel that actions taken by his or her employer or former employer 

were discriminatory. A more appropriate statement in this instance is ...”We did not obtain 

sufficient evidence to conclude that you were discriminated against.”

Sample Closure Letter Wording When an ECP Concern Does Not Contain Sufficient Detail or 

Evidence of an Inadequacy Associated with Regulated Activities to Warrant NRC Followup 

"The NRC does not currently have a requirement for licensees to retain an ECP. However, 

since ECPs provide an alternate means for employees to raise issues and can receive concerns 

involving nuclear, quality, and radiological safety, the NRC does have an interest in how ECP 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

318

programs handle such concerns. If such concerns are being handled inappropriately or 

ineffectively, the NRC would be interested in any additional information you may have in this 

area. 

If the Alleger Asserts Misconduct by NRC in the Handling of His/Her Concern: 

The NRC plans no further action regarding this concern. However, if you believe that there was 

NRC misconduct involved in the handling of the allegation, you may contact the NRC Office of 

the Inspector General (OIG) through any of the following methods: 

Telephone: 1-800-233-3497 

Via the NRC Website: http://www.nrc.gov/insp-gen/complaint.html

In Writing: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the Inspector General 

Hotline Program, Mail Stop O5-E13 

11555 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

319

Exhibit 19 

Sample Closure Memorandum to File 

(For Anonymous Allegations, NRC Staff-Identified or Licensee-Identified Wrongdoing, Or 

When An Alleger Specifically Requests No Correspondence From NRC) 

MEMORANDUM TO: Allegation File XXXX-200Y-A-XXXX or OAC 

FROM: (responsible staff member or OAC) 

SUBJECT: CLOSURE OF ALLEGATION XXXX-20YY-A-XXXX REGARDING 

(site/facility) 

On _____, the NRC received an anonymous allegation [or opened an allegation file based on 

an NRC staff-identified or licensee-identified wrongdoing matter] that/regarding (subject of 

allegation) at (facility). 

USE WHEN ALLEGER HAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED NO CORRESPONDENCE 

On _____, the NRC received an allegation that/regarding (subject of allegation) at (facility). 

During the course of the staff’s review, the alleger specifically requested not to receive 

correspondence from NRC related to this matter. [An attempt was made to re-contact the 

alleger to explain the advantages of continued involvement in the allegation process. However, 

the staff was unsuccessful in re-contacting the alleger.] OR [Although the advantages of 

continued involvement in the allegation process were explained to the alleger during a 

telephone call on _____ / in a letter dated _____, the alleger insisted that no further contact be 

provided by the NRC.] NRC follow up action is described in this memorandum. 

USE FOR ALL CLOSURE MEMORANDUMS 

An allegation review board(s) (ARB(s)) was/were convened on (date(s)). The ARB(s) 

concluded that (describe actions prescribed) to evaluate the allegation (or NRC staffidentified/licensee-identified wrongdoing matter). Enclosure 1 to this letter lists the concern(s) 

and describes the staff’s review and conclusions regarding that/each concern.

Based on the anonymous nature of the allegation OR since the alleger specifically requested 

not to receive correspondence from NRC OR Since this is an NRC staff-identified wrongdoing 

OR a licensee-identified wrongdoing matter, no response to the alleger is appropriate. (USE IF 

APPROPRIATE) Remaining NRC actions in this matter will be processed and tracked through 

the enforcement process. 

This allegation is closed. 

Enclosure(s): As stated 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

320

FORMAT FOR ENCLOSURE TO CLOSURE MEMORANDUM 

Concern 1: 

Describe each concern as provided or as modified by the alleger (if the alleger provided 

clarifying information to better describe his/her concern during the course of NRC’s review).

Response to Concern 1: 

(Provide a direct answer to each concern, stating what was evaluated, how it was evaluated, 

and providing NRC’s conclusions regarding the validity of the concern. It is preferable that an 

overall conclusion be provided indicating that the concern was substantiated, unsubstantiated, 

or partially substantiated, as long as that overall conclusion is well supported by the 

accompanying discussion regarding the evaluation of the concern. However, if providing such 

an overall conclusion would be confusing (e.g., if aspects of the concern were substantiated, but 

the alleged impropriety or inadequacy was not found to be valid), alternate wording may be 

used, such as... “While NRC was able to substantiate that certain (facts/statements/conditions 

regarding _____) were true, NRC was unable to confirm or validate an impropriety or 

inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activity.” (If appropriate add: NRC findings 

regarding this concern are documented in (inspection report number, or other document 

citation) dated ______. A copy of the relevant section(s) of the report/document is/are 

enclosed.) 

FOR ANY CONCERN THAT INVOLVED AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE 

[If an RFI was sent to the licensee, the documentation of allegation concern closure should 

reference the feedback provided by the licensee but should also distinctly describe NRC’s 

evaluation and conclusions regarding the concern based on all pertinent information, including 

the licensee’s RFI response. Specifically, in addition to restating the alleger’s concern, the 

concern response should separately describe (1) the licensee’s evaluation and response and 

(2) NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response and NRC’s overall conclusions regarding the 

validity of the concern. The description of NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response should 

articulate any NRC staff independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted 

to validate aspects of the licensee’s response.]

[Repeat for Additional Concerns] 

[See Exhibit 18, “Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Other than Security Concerns),” for 

Suggested Wording in Response to Certain Types of Concerns (e.g., if concern involved 

10 CFR 2.390 information, if OI returns potential wrongdoing issue to staff without completing

the investigation, if concern involves enforcement/assessment process outcomes.] 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

321

Exhibit 20 

Sample Closure Letter to Alleger (For Security Related concerns) 

Alleger’s Name XXXX-200X-A-XXXX

and Address 

Subject: Concerns You Raised to the NRC Regarding (Facility Name) 

Dear (Alleger’s Name): 

[FOR ALL LETTERS] The NRC has completed its follow-up in response to the concern(s) you 

brought to our attention on (date) regarding security issues at (facility name). [FOR 

CATEGORY III CONCERNS] Enclosure 1 to this letter restates your concern(s) and describes 

the NRC’s review and conclusions regarding (that concern/each concern) [Add the following to 

this sentence FOR CATEGORY III CONCERNS WHICH RESULT IN A MINOR FINDING OR 

VIOLATION AT SEVERITY LEVEL IV OR LOWER REQUIRING COMPENSATORY ACTIONS, 

WHEN THE ALLEGER IS A SECURITY FORCE MEMBER AT THE FACILITY] and makes note 

of a discussion that [was OR is to be] held with you to discuss compensatory actions taken in 

relation to your concern(s). [Note: FOR CATEGORY III CONCERNS, the letter to the alleger 

may indicate the number of findings characterized as Green or lower (for ROP findings) or 

violations characterized as Severity Level IV or lower.] 

[FOR CATEGORY I AND II CONCERNS] While we are fully committed to our goal of ensuring 

openness in our regulatory process, we must balance that goal with ensuring the continued 

safety and secure operation of nuclear facilities in our country. Normally, when we have 

completed our review of an allegation, we provide the concerned individual with information as 

to whether their concern was substantiated and details on the actions taken by the NRC to 

evaluate the concern. However, due to the nature of the security-related issue(s) associated 

with your concern(s) and to ensure that we are not unnecessarily releasing information that 

would reveal any potential security-related vulnerabilities, [FOR CATEGORY I CONCERNS] we 

are unable to provide you with specific details regarding the NRC’s evaluation of your concerns. 

[FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS] we can provide only limited information regarding the NRC’s 

evaluation of your concern(s). [FOR CATEGORY I CONCERNS] A restatement of your 

concerns is provided in Enclosure 1. [FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS] Enclosure 1 to this 

letter restates your concern(s) and provides indication as to whether our evaluation resulted in a 

finding or violation [Add the following to this sentence FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS WHICH 

RESULT IN A MINOR FINDING OR VIOLATION AT SEVERITY LEVEL IV OR LOWER 

REQUIRING COMPENSATORY ACTIONS, WHEN THE ALLEGER IS A SECURITY FORCE 

MEMBER AT THE FACILITY] and makes note of a discussion that [was OR is to be] held with 

you to discuss the NRC’s actions and conclusions regarding your concern(s). [Note: If 

applicable FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS, the letter should not discuss the number of ROP 

findings above Green or violations above Severity Level IV.] 

CERTIFIED MAIL (or Other Appropriate Carrier) 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (NOTE: This statement should appear on the first page and 

the official record copy.) 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

322

[FOR CATEGORY II AND III CONCERNS. USE IF, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE 

ALLEGER, IT WAS AGREED THAT NRC WILL DISCUSS ALLEGATION EVALUATION AND 

RESULTS IN A PUBLIC FORUM] 

Allegation-related correspondence is not normally placed on the public record. However, as 

part of our response to your concern(s), we plan to publicly discuss the results of our evaluation 

by (indicate communication vehicle). The NRC believes this will further the agency’s mission by 

(state reason for public dissemination). Your name and any other identifying information will be 

excluded from the information that is released. In your conversation with (NRC employee 

name) on (date), you indicated that you would not object to the NRC publicly discussing the 

results of our evaluation of this (these) concern(s). Please contact (me/Allegation Coordinator 

name) at the toll free telephone number noted below if you have any objections at this time to 

the NRC disclosing the results of our assessment and the fact that they were raised in the 

allegation program. We will consider any objections that you may have before doing so. If you 

do not contact us within [ten] days of the date you receive this letter, it is our intention to 

proceed with our plans to publicly discuss the NRC’S allegation evaluation and results. 

[FOR ALL LETTERS] Thank you for informing us of your concerns. Allegations are an 

important source of information in support of the NRC’s safety mission. We take our safety 

responsibility to the public seriously and will continue to do so within the bounds of our lawful 

authority. We believe that our actions have been responsive to your concerns. (FOR 

CATEGORY II AND III CONCERNS, USE NEXT SENTENCE IN CASES WHERE WE HAVE 

NOT SUPPORTED THE ALLEGER’S CONCERNS - otherwise, remove it.) If, however, new 

information is provided that suggests that our conclusions should be altered, we will reevaluate 

that information to determine if additional evaluation is indicated. Should you have any 

additional questions, or if the NRC can be of further assistance, please call me toll-free at the 

NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403 (if the alleger resides in the geographic area of the 

action office) OR the (regional/office) toll-free number 1-800-XXX-XXXX (if the alleger does not 

reside in the geographical area of the action office) or you may provide information to me in 

writing at (Allegation Office address). [USE THE FOLLOWING AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY 

THE OAC] You may also communicate with me by electronic mail, if you so choose. However, 

when doing so, please call me in advance or provide your phone number in your e-mail 

message so that I can confirm that you are the source of the information. Also, please be 

advised that the NRC cannot protect the information during transmission on the Internet and 

there is a possibility that someone could read your response while it is in transit. My e-mail 

address is XXX@nrc.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosure(s): As stated 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

323

FORMAT FOR ENCLOSURE TO CLOSURE LETTER TO ALLEGER FOR SECURITYRELATED CONCERNS 

RESPONSE TO CONCERNS 

ALLEGATION NO. XXXX-YYYY-A-XXXX

Concern 1: 

Restate the alleger’s concern as provided in the acknowledgment letter, as modified by the 

alleger, or as clarified by the alleger (if the alleger provided clarifying information to better 

describe his/her concern during the course of NRC’s review).

Response to Concern 1: 

FOR CATEGORY III CONCERNS 

[Provide a direct answer to the alleger’s concern, stating what was evaluated, how it was 

evaluated, and providing NRC’s conclusions regarding the validity of the concern. For Category 

III concerns involving a minor finding or violation at Severity Level IV or lower and requiring 

compensatory actions, it may be indicated that corrective/compensatory actions were taken, but 

do not provide the specifics of the corrective/compensatory actions. It is preferable that an 

overall conclusion be provided indicating that the concern was substantiated, unsubstantiated, 

or partially substantiated, as long as that overall conclusion is well supported by the 

accompanying discussion regarding the evaluation of the concern. However, if providing such 

an overall conclusion will be confusing to the alleger (e.g., if aspects of the concern were 

substantiated, but the alleged impropriety or inadequacy was not found to be valid), alternate 

wording may be used, such as... “While NRC was able to substantiate that certain 

(facts/statements/conditions regarding _____) were true, NRC was unable to confirm or validate 

an impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activity.”]

FOR ANY CATEGORY III CONCERN THAT INVOLVED AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE 

[If an RFI was sent to the licensee, and the security concern is determined to be Category III, 

the documentation of allegation concern closure should reference the feedback provided by the 

licensee [NOTE: Do not discuss specifics of corrective/compensatory actions taken] but should 

also distinctly describe NRC’s evaluation and conclusions regarding the concern based on all 

pertinent information, including the licensee’s RFI response. Specifically, in addition to restating 

the alleger’s concern, the concern response should separately describe (1) the licensee’s 

evaluation and response (without describing corrective/compensatory actions) and (2) NRC’s 

evaluation of the licensee’s response and NRC’s overall conclusions regarding the validity of the 

concern. The description of NRC’s evaluation of the licensee’s response should articulate any 

NRC staff independent verification, inspection, or investigative efforts conducted (do not discuss 

any efforts to independently verify corrective/compensatory actions) to validate aspects of the 

licensee’s response.]

FOR CATEGORY III CONCERNS INVOLVING A MINOR FINDING OR VIOLATION AT 

SEVERITY LEVEL IV OR LOWER AND REQUIRING COMPENSATORY ACTIONS 

The safety significance of the violation of [briefly discuss identified violation] was evaluated by 

the NRC and found to be minor. (Licensee name) has been informed of this matter and has 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

324

promptly corrected the identified deficiency/deficiencies or taken prompt compensatory action, 

thereby establishing licensee compliance with applicable physical protection and security 

requirements). [NOTE: Do not discuss specifics of corrective/compensatory actions taken.] 

Minor violations represent items of low safety significance and are not subject to formal 

enforcement action or documentation by the NRC. Therefore, this minor finding/violation will not 

be documented in an inspection report, and no further regulatory action is planned. 

FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS, USE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE 

While we cannot provide the specific details regarding our evaluation of your concern, we note 

that (an NRC inspection was recently conducted in the security area OR [IF THE CONCERN 

INVOLVED AN RFI TO THE LICENSEE] we note that NRC staff recently requested that 

(licensee name) evaluate this/these and other matter(s) in the security area). NRC staff 

reviewed the (licensee name’s) response to ensure that it was of adequate scope and depth. 

(Based on the NRC assessment no findings were identified OR the NRC assessment resulted in 

at least one finding). Identified deficiencies were promptly corrected or addressed by 

compensatory action, thereby establishing licensee compliance with applicable physical 

protection and security requirements. To ensure that we do not unnecessarily release 

information that would reveal potential security-related vulnerabilities, we are unable to inform 

you if any finding is specifically associated with the concern(s) you raised. [Note: If applicable, 

the letter may state either that at least one security finding was Greater than Green, or at least 

one matter is being considered for escalated enforcement.] 

FOR CATEGORY II CONCERNS AND CATEGORY III CONCERNS WHICH RESULT IN A 

MINOR FINDING OR VIOLATION REQUIRING COMPENSATORY ACTIONS, WHEN THE 

ALLEGER IS A SECURITY FORCE MEMBER AT THE FACILITY 

Since you are a member of the security force and are permitted access to information related to 

physical security matters at (facility name), (NRC staff member name(s)) discussed with you on 

(date) OR scheduled a telephone conference with you and with (NRC staff member name(s)) on 

(date) to discuss [FOR CATEGORY III CONCERNS REQUIRING COMPENSATORY 

ACTIONS] the compensatory actions taken in relation to your concern(s) OR [FOR CATEGORY 

II CONCERNS] the NRC’s actions and conclusions regarding your concern(s). 

FOR CATEGORY I CONCERNS, USE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE 

As indicated in the cover letter, normally, when we have completed our review of an allegation, 

we provide the concerned individual with information as to whether their concern was 

substantiated and details on the actions taken by the NRC to evaluate the concern. However, 

due to the nature of the security-related issue(s) associated with your concern(s) and to ensure 

that we are not unnecessarily releasing information that would reveal any potential 

security-related vulnerability, we are unable to provide you with specific details regarding the 

NRC’s evaluation of your concern. 

[Repeat for additional concerns] 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

325

Exhibit 21 

Sample Letters From OE ADR Program Manager Informing Alleger and Licensee That 

NRC Will Not Investigate a Discrimination Concern Following a Negotiated Settlement 

(NRC Sponsored Early ADR or Other) 

Sample Letter to Alleger 

Date 

[Alleger Name & Address] 

Subject: ADR [Insert No.] (Insert Allegation #) - Settlement Agreement 

Dear Mr./Ms. [Alleger name]: 

This letter acknowledges receipt of the alternative dispute resolution settlement agreement 

between you and [Insert Company name], dated [Insert date of settlement agreement]. The 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reviewed this agreement and has found no restrictive 

provisions in violation of 10 CFR [50.7 (f)] [Note: modify based on the type of licensee]. 

Therefore, in accordance with the Commission's policy published on August 13, 2004, in the 

Federal Register (69FR50219), the NRC will not investigate or take enforcement action relating 

to your allegation of discrimination which is the subject of your settlement agreement. 

Please be advised however that your settlement agreement does not impact the underlying 

technical issue(s), if any, relating to your allegation of discrimination or any other allegation you 

may have filed with the NRC. Thus, the technical issue(s), if any, will be treated separately 

within the allegation program and addressed accordingly. Please visit www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/allegations/what-is-allegation.html for additional details about the NRC’s 

Allegation Program. 

Sincerely, 

__________________

ADR Program Manager 

Office of Enforcement 

Sample Letter to Licensee 

Date 

[Insert Representative’s name, Company & Address]

Subject: ADR [insert No.] - Settlement Agreement 

Dear Mr./Mrs. [Insert Representative name]: 

This letter acknowledges receipt of the alternative dispute resolution settlement agreement 

between [Insert Company Name] and [Insert Alleger’s full name], dated [Insert date of 

settlement agreement]. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reviewed this agreement 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

326

and has found no restrictive provisions in violation of 10 CFR [50.7(f)] [Note: modify based on 

the type of licensee]. Therefore, in accordance with the Commission's policy published on 

August 13, 2004, in the Federal Register (69FR50219), the NRC will not investigate or take 

enforcement action relating to the allegation of discrimination which is the basis of the 

referenced settlement agreement. 

Sincerely, 

___________________

ADR Program Manager 

Office of Enforcement 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

327

Exhibit 22 

Guidance for Correspondence to Allegers with Security-Related Concerns 

Concern 

Category

Description Response Examples

I Involves a potential 

generic industry 

security 

vulnerability.

Letter to alleger will reiterate issues 

raised in sufficient detail, but staff 

actions and conclusions will not be 

described. Cognizant NSIR and/or 

regional security inspection 

management will concur on allegation 

closure letter. 

*Failure, degradation or

other deficiency in a 

model or brand of 

security equipment (e.g., 

intrusion detection 

system, contraband 

detection equipment) 

that affects multiple 

licensees.

II If true, would 

constitute more 

than minor finding 

or violation, as 

determined by 

applicable

guidance or review 

panels.

Letter to alleger will reiterate issues 

raised in sufficient detail. Letter will 

state whether findings were identified 

and deficiencies corrected, but without 

specific detail. Response provided 

once required compensatory action, if 

any, are in place. Cognizant NSIR 

and/or regional security inspection 

management will concur on allegation 

closure letter. If requested and the 

alleger is a security force member at 

the facility with normal access to such 

information, the staff will discuss 

agency actions and conclusions. 

Employment and position verification 

will not be sought without prior 

permission from the alleger.

*Failure to control work

hour limits within 

requirements that results 

in a fitness-for-duty 

issue.

*Failure to maintain a

required number of 

armed responders.

*Failure to install, test

and implement a 

protected area intrusion 

detection system in 

accordance with the 

manufacturer or licensee 

design or performance 

specifications.

III If true, would, at 

most, constitute a 

minor finding or 

violation, as 

determined by 

applicable 

guidance or review 

panels.

Response provided once required 

compensatory actions, if any, are in 

place. Response will describe staff 

actions and staff’s conclusion regarding 

concern validity, but not a description of 

compensatory actions, if any are taken. 

Cognizant NSIR and/or regional 

security inspection management will 

concur on allegation closure letter. If 

requested, and the alleger is a security 

force member at the facility with normal 

access to such information, and a 

review of the concern resulted in a 

finding or violation requiring 

compensatory actions, the staff will 

discuss the compensatory actions with 

the alleger. Employment and position 

verification will not be sought without 

prior permission from the alleger.

(1) Not a finding:

*Failure to provide

security personnel 

coverage to a post that 

is not a regulatory 

committed position.

(2) Minor finding:

*Failure to meet height

requirements in a 

section of the protected 

area fence, but the 

infraction is not a 

significant dimensional 

discrepancy.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

328

Exhibit 23 

FOIA Processing Guidance for Investigation and Allegation Related Material 

(after OI Case and Allegation is Closed and Initial Enforcement Action is Issued/Cited)1 

FOR ANY OI CASE/ANY ALLEGATION RECORDS: 

Perform This

Requester is: Type of Review: Types of Reviews:

(1) ALLEGER2/WITNESS/DEFENDANT/CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE

FINGERPRINTING SCRUB (see page 2 for additional

information) 

(2) OTHER PROTECTED INFORMATION 

SCRUB (see page 3 for additional information)

(3) ADDENDUM (see page 4 for additional general guidance))

1

 NOV/Order/CO/NCV/Exercise of Discretion/Closeout Letter is Issued/Cited. 

2

 For purposes of this document, the term “sufficiently unique” means that the information, if released, could reasonably be expected to identify the individual about whom the information pertains. 

3

 Widely Known Alleger-The Agency Allegation Advisor determines if the alleger is widely publicly known (and documents this determination in writing), i.e., an alleger who has publicly identified 

himself/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. If determined to be widely 

known, alleger fingerprint scrub is unnecessary.

Alleger (or their Atty) 1st Party* Not Public (1+2+3)

Summary of How to Handle 1st Party Requests: 

For Allegers requesting information about their allegation/investigation—

release their name, job titles/description of duties, Personally Identifiable Information 

(PII) and any other information they provided about themselves. 

For Witnesses/Defendants/Confidential Sources—withhold under Ex 7(C) their names, 

sufficiently unique2job titles/description of duties, PII and “fingerprinting” information. 

Withhold under Ex 7(D) as well as Ex 7(C) if assurance of confidentiality was expressly 

given (NRC policy requires written documentation of such assurance) or may 

reasonably be inferred (although this will be the rare occasion; for example, a witness 

refusing to be interviewed at work). 

For other individuals mentioned (not interviewed) in the file—withhold their names, 

sufficiently unique job titles/description of duties and PII using Ex 7(C).

*How to Handle Specific Documents in BOTH Reviews:

In ROI, Exhibits and administrative documents (such as ROI cover memo, OI background 

documents, and emails/records from any office): Withhold under Ex 7(C) names of 

Investigators/OI Admin staff/FODs/SAICs and other information sufficiently unique that release 

could reasonably be expected to identify the employee (e.g., last four digits of their work phone 

number), but release their job titles unless sufficiently unique, such as SAIC. 

Withhold under Ex 7(C) licensee’s or private attorney‘s name 

Withhold law firm’s name under Ex 7(C) if release could reasonably be expected to identify the 

attorney (e.g., a sole practitioner, or if only one attorney in the firm works on this subject matter). 

In any documents:

Release names and job titles of NRC Senior Managers, Resident Inspectors, NRC technical 

experts, Regional Counsel and other NRC employees (except if the person is a witness or alleger 

in, or a subject of, the investigation, then withhold under Ex 7(C)). 

All Others 3

rd Party* Yes Public (1+2+3)

 Summary of How to Handle 3rd Party Requests:

 For Allegers—Widely, Publicly known3—release their name and 

 job titles/description of duties. Withhold their PII under Ex 7(C). 

 For other Allegers/Witnesses/Defendants/Confidential Sources—

 withhold under Ex 7(C) their name, sufficiently unique job titles/description of duties, PII

and “fingerprinting” information. Withhold under Ex 7(D) as well as Ex 7(C) if assurance 

of confidentiality was expressly given or may reasonably be inferred [see notes in 1st

party discussion]

 For other individuals not allegers or witnesses (mentioned/not interviewed)— withhold 

under Ex 7(c) their name, sufficiently unique job titles/description of duties and PII .

80

100
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

329

-2- 

(1) ALLEGER2/WITNESS/DEFENDANT/CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE FINGERPRINTING SCRUB: 

Withhold all information that, if released, could reasonably be expected to identify the individual.

EXAMPLES OF PROTECTED INFORMATION—Use Exemption 7(C) to withhold this information. Exemption 7(D) may also be used to withhold information only if there was an express or implied 

assurance of confidentiality.

A. Core Personal Privacy Information—name, sufficiently unique job titles/description of duties and PII (including home address, social security number, date and place of birth, mother’s 

maiden name, biometric records, home/cell/pager/blackberry number, personal email address, military service information, education history, medical history, and other personally sensitive 

information such as alcoholism, drug addiction, other health problems, and financial transactions) 

(i) Pronouns—If the work group is very small and there are only a few women in it or there are very few women in a particular occupation, in order to protect the identity of the 

woman/women, you must redact all masculine and feminine singular pronouns

(ii) References to Date and Time of Events and Meetings that, if released, could reasonably be expected to identify the Alleger/Witness/Defendant/Confidential Source

(iii) References to a Supervisor, Co-workers, Small Work Groups, or Associations that, if released, could reasonably be expected to identify the Alleger/Witness/Defendant/Confidential 

Source

(iv) Attorney (private or licensee)

(v) Law firm’s name if release could reasonably be expected to identify the attorney (e.g., a sole practitioner, or if only one attorney in the firm works on this subject matter) 

(vi) References to, or Initials of, individuals on forms or other documentation if the identity of that individual is being protected

B. Employment History—If sufficiently unique, Job Titles, Positions, Termination Date, and Duties Description. If release could reasonably be expected to identify the person being protected, 

number of years in various positions.

C. Employee Badge number, Direct Work Telephone Numbers Identifying Office Locations and mailstops that are sufficiently unique.

D. Performance Information—References to disciplinary letters, dates of disciplinary letters, text from disciplinary letters, Personal Improvement Plans, appraisal ratings, appraisal narrative, 

any other employee’s or manager’s name and comments about performance if such information could reasonably be expected to identify the employee

E. Training Attendance Records (unless the course is mandated for a large group of employees, such as annual XXXX training)—[ABC Class] on [XX/XX/XX]

(2) OTHER PROTECTED INFORMATION SCRUB:

OGC/Regional Counsel’s Opinion—Exemption 5—Located in the Report of Investigation (ROI) and possibly the Investigation Status Record. This is attorney-client privileged material.

Predecisional/Drafts—Exemption 5—Drafts or position papers that express opinions, or make recommendations, on legal or policy matters prior to the adoption of a final agency decision on the matter 

and that have not been expressly adopted by the final decision-maker. This is to protect from disclosure our deliberative process as well as encourage open and frank exchange of advice, opinion and 

ideas. This is also to protect against public confusion that might result from disclosure of reasons and rationales that were not in fact ultimately the grounds for an agency’s action. This exemption is 

for internal government documents, with limited exceptions. Also, this exemption should be used only if it is reasonably foreseeable that disclosure of the information would result in harm; a harm 

statement needs to be provided.

10 CFR 2.390 (some older documents may refer to 10 CFR 2.790)—Exemption 4—Licensee Referred Records-Records the licensee provided that have a “2.390 Proprietary” stamp, or other 

withholding statement on the document, and/or were accompanied by a 2.390 affidavit letter. This category consists of trade secrets and commercial or financial information that was obtained from a 

person and is privileged or confidential. Information on a licensee’s physical protection or material control and accounting program may also be covered by Exemption 4 when received from the 

licensee if it is “privileged or confidential.” If the licensee was required to submit the information to the NRC, it is considered “confidential” if disclosure would be likely to impair the Government’s ability 

to obtain necessary information in the future or to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the licensee. If the licensee voluntarily submitted the information, it is considered “confidential” if 

the licensee would customarily not release that type of information to the public. We bracket the records or recommend they be released. OIS/FOIA Privacy and Information Collections Branch will 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

330

send them back to the licensee with NRC’s recommendation for release, giving the licensee 10 days to respond. The licensee either agrees or provides additional justification for why the records 

should be withheld. You need to provide the address/contact for the licensee. Records that we have determined are to be withheld in their entirety on the basis of another exemption are not referred 

to the licensee.

Security-Related Information (not Safeguards)—Exemption 7(F)—Disclosure of information that could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual, such as

Allegation/Investigation records of security-related violations/enforcement actions. This category would include records created by the NRC that contain detailed plant security information, including 

(a) our evaluations of a licensee’s control and accounting procedures for safeguarding licensed nuclear material, (b) our evaluations of detailed measures for the physical security of a licensed facility, 

particularly information that could facilitate attempts at sabotage, diversion of nuclear material, or other attacks detrimental to public health and safety, (c) our evaluation of licensee information 

revealing vulnerabilities of nuclear facilities or materials to theft or sabotage, and (d) certain facility drawings showing specific locations of equipment/materials.

Condition Reports—Exemption 7(C)—In condition reports (e.g., problem identification forms, incident reports, and work reports), withhold report numbers, dates of event, month/year written, title, 

specific title paraphrasing, and names of the author, reviewer, and approver. Though rare, determine on a case-by-case basis if the report should be withheld in its entirety (e.g., if the remaining 

information after the information mentioned in the previous sentence is redacted is meaningless, or if the only way to prevent an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy would be to withhold the 

entire report). 

Licensee Employee Concern Program (ECP) Files—Exemption 7(C)—Any information in the ECP files that could reasonably be expected to identify the Alleger/Witness/Defendant/Confidential Source 

(such as the date that the individual went to the ECP). Though rare, determine on a case-by-case basis if the ECP file should be withheld in its entirety (e.g., if the remaining information after the 

information mentioned in the previous sentence is redacted is meaningless, or if the only way to prevent an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy would be to withhold the entire file).

Information Related Solely to Internal Personnel Rules and Practices of an Agency—Exemption 2—Following the Supreme Court’s decision in 2011 in Milner v. Department of the Navy, this 

exemption is limited to information pertaining to an agency’s rules and practices dealing with employee relations or human resources, such as vacancy crediting plans or parking regulations. In 

addition, this exemption should be used only if it is reasonably foreseeable that disclosure of the information would result in harm; a harm statement needs to be provided. Consequently, this 

exemption is rarely used.

All teleconference bridge passcodes—Exemption 6 

Investigative Techniques—Exemption 7(E)—Information that would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions not generally known by the public, or would 

disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. Although, in general, you cannot use 

Exemption 7(E) to withhold information pertaining to techniques and procedures well known by the public, i.e., “wiretap” or “polygraph,” Exemption 7(E) may be used to withhold information regarding 

how a well-known technique or procedure was actually used in a particular investigation. A harm statement needs to be provided.

(3) ADDENDUM (additional general guidance): 

RECORDS OTHER THAN OI/NRC STAFF/LICENSEE RECORDS:

Records from Other Federal Agency—Generally, do not bracket their records, unless there is information in the record that OI wants withheld. OI needs to bracket that information and indicate the 

FOIA exemption. You need to inform OIS/FOIA about this material. OIS/FOIA refers the records to that agency. 

Some Federal agencies (TVA, VA) are also licensees. You need to make a determination whether they are acting in their capacity as a sister agency or commercial entity. If the records were 

obtained from the agency because it has an NRC license, the records are treated the same as records from any other licensee (See the “10 CFR 2.390” Section on page 3). If the records were 

obtained from the agency in its capacity as another Federal agency, then the records are treated the same as if they came from another Federal agency, not bracketed and referred back to that 

agency by OIS/FOIA. 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

331

Exhibit 24 

Allegation Program Assessment Checklist 

Allegation Program Controls/Administration – General 

1.0 Allegation Document Control/Program Information Sensitivity and Protection

1.1 Files kept in a proper location. File access is controlled by the OAC. 

1.2 Allegation files involving a confidential source or containing SGI are maintained in a 

location separate from other files that do not contain such information.

1.3 Files are easily retrievable. Mechanism exists for OAC to retrieve a file being 

reviewed by the staff (e.g., check-out sheet)

1.4 Files retain appropriate cover sheets when removed from storage location. 

1.5 Files contain all documentation related to the allegation (receipt documentation, 

completed ARB forms, RFI worksheet, correspondence, conversation records, OI 

report, alleger interview transcript, inspection report, staff evaluations, 3-week e-mail 

info, DOL decisions, RAC documentation, pertinent e-mail messages, etc.). If it is 

impractical to retain a supporting document in the file, a reference to the document is 

provided. 

1.6 Process documentation distributed by the OAC (e.g., allegation receipt info, ARB 

preparatory documents, allegation status reports) or other allegation information 

forwarded to the staff is appropriately controlled, i.e., via cover sheets, if hard copy, or 

via e-mail message designation (“Sensitive Allegation Information” in subject line).

1.7 Documents with alleger identifying information are marked to indicate that the 

documents identify an alleger.

1.8 If allegation includes an OIG-related issue, the OIG issue is properly redacted from the 

allegation receipt info, and handled separately per region/office procedures.

1.9 Document development related to allegations containing Safeguards Information is 

processed on a secure drive, not connected to the LAN 

1.10 In addition to cautions taken re: written allegation documentation (reports, e-mails, 

AMS, etc.) region/office staff demonstrate sensitivity to allegation information by:

- refraining from discussion of allegation information in hallways or public areas

- refraining from using alleger names during discussion of allegation activities, unless it 

is necessary to appropriately evaluate the allegation

- assuring that individuals engaging in allegation-related meetings/discussions have a 

“need-to-know”

1.11 There were no instances involving the inappropriate release of an alleger’s identity or 

information that could identify an alleger.

2.0 AMS Documentation

2.1 AMS reflects the content of the official allegation record (the hard-copy allegation file)

2.2 AMS excludes names of non-NRC personnel

2.3 AMS does not contain SGI

2.4 Dates for allegation-related actions are correctly entered in AMS 

2.5 AMS data is kept current (most important - initial receipt info, ARB decisions/assigned 

actions, correspondence dates, concern/allegation closure dates)

2.6 Database entries are coded in AMS per program guidance
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

332

3.0 Allegation Status/Tracking

3.1 Office/region keeps responsible staff aware of open allegation status and assigned 

actions (usually accomplished through distribution of AMS reports, but may be 

supplemented with periodic meetings, as necessary).

3.2 Mechanism in place for informing resident and non-resident inspectors about open 

allegations and past allegation trends.

3.2 Office/region tracks performance against allegation program timeliness goals. 

3.3 Region/office management meets periodically with OI to check status of currently open 

OI investigations, and discuss whether investigation priority is appropriate.

4.0 Allegation Training

4.1 New employees complete basic allegation training within 30 days 

4.2 Region/office employees who perform work involving NRC-regulated activity and/or 

who have the opportunity to periodically interface with NRC licensee personnel or 

external stakeholders complete allegation refresher training annually

5.0 Region/Office Program Implementation Guidance

5.1 A procedure governing the implementation of the allegation program has been 

established and is maintained by the region/office.

5.2 In general, the regional/office implementing procedure conforms to MD 8.8 and the 

Allegation Manual. 

5.3 Items in the region/office implementing procedure that conflict with MD 8.8/Allegation 

Manual are either more conservative than MD 8.8/Allegation Manual guidance or 

reflect region/office-specific info that does not affect program implementation.

6.0 Charging Time to Allegation Program Activities

6.1 Region/office employees appropriately charge time to allegation-related activity 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

333

Individual Allegation File Assessment 

1.0 Allegation Receipt

1.1 Allegation forwarded to OAC within 5 calendar days

1.2 Allegation receipt documentation complete. Allegation concerns clearly described, in 

sufficient detail, and fit the NRC allegation definition. Any additional or supporting info 

provided by the alleger (e.g., letters, e-mails, drawings, etc.) was included in the file.

1.3 Alleger contact information was recorded (if the alleger was willing to provide it).

1.4 If received electronically, the alleger’s identity was confirmed via either telephone or 

follow-up e-mail (in response to standard NRC e-mail response). Alleger treated 

anonymously if unable to confirm. 

1.5 If received in person or by phone, alleger was informed about identity protection 

policy. If not informed at time of receipt, alleger was informed of identity protection 

policy through alternate means (e.g., additional phone call, acknowledgment letter).

1.6 Alleger informed about Licensee RFI as potential NRC evaluation option.

1.7 If received in person or by phone, and a concern involves discrimination or chilling 

effect, alleger was asked additional questions to help support a prima-facie evaluation 

by OGC/Regional Counsel or to further document the asserted SCWE problem. If not 

asked at time of receipt, and if additional info is needed to understand the concern, 

questions were asked through alternate means (e.g., additional phone call, ack. letter). 

1.8 If alleger provided contact information but requested no additional contact with NRC, 

the advantages of continued involvement in the process were explained (i.e., 

facilitates understanding of concerns raised, allows NRC to obtain additional info as 

needed, and affords the alleger the opportunity to assess and provide feedback 

regarding NRC conclusions). The alleger’s continued involvement was encouraged. 

1.9 If the allegation involved security-related and/or Safeguards Information, the 

information was received and handled appropriately

1.10 If the alleger promised additional information, efforts were made to obtain it. 

1.11 If confidentiality was offered to the alleger, allegation file retained the completed 

Confidentiality Agreement and the proper cover sheet (NRC Form 761). 

1.12 If the alleger’s identity was intentionally released or if confidentiality was revoked, 

appropriate justification/approval for such action is noted in the allegation file.

2.0 Allegation Review Board

2.1 ARB convened within 30 calendar days of receipt by the agency (unless transferred 

from OIG – in such cases, date received from OIG is the action office receipt date).

2.2 If the allegation involved an OSI, an ARB was held as soon as possible.

2.3 ARB quorum met (chairperson, OAC, responsible staff member)

2.4 If allegation involved potential wrongdoing, OI and OGC(Reg. Counsel) attended the 

ARB (or the ARB assigned an action for OI/OGC(Reg. Counsel) review).

2.5 ARB minutes were complete - captured required actions, reasoning for RFI (if 

applicable), safety significance discussion, comments and other pertinent information.

2.6 ARB assigned actions were clear, appropriate to accomplish concern evaluation, and 

in accordance with program guidance. The reasoning for a selected evaluation 

approach was documented, as appropriate.

2.7 RFI (to licensee) Worksheet completed and included in the file (or file included an 

equivalent alternate description of whether MD 8.8 RFI criteria were met and the 

ARB’s decision related to RFI)

2.8 If alleger objected to RFI, and ARB recommended RFI over alleger’s objection, alleger 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

334

was informed of the decision, and record of discussion w/alleger was placed in the file.

2.9 Safety significance of each concern was discussed. Expected completion times for 

assigned follow-up actions were commensurate with the safety significance.

2.10 For a discrimination concern, ARB discussed and ARB record documented prima-facie 

conclusion by OGC/Regional Counsel, or assigned action to OGC/Regional Counsel 

to render a prima-facie decision for inclusion in the file, if unable to attend the ARB.

2.11 If prima-facie was articulated, ARB assigned action to offer Early ADR to the alleger. 

2.12 If OI investigation was recommended: 

- a draft Notice of Violation was provided.

- investigation priority assignment and basis was discussed and recorded.

- action was assigned to gather and provide source documentation to OI 

[This is a suggestion not a requirement because some regions/offices accomplish this 

action via the ARB. The intent is to help assure that the investigation is appropriately 

focused and that the violation can be legally supported. For example, if the 

wrongdoing matter involved an alleged willful violation of a procedure, OI needs to 

refer to the true basis document, i.e., the applicable version of the procedure.]

- the underlying technical issue(s) was/were appropriately dispositioned (processed as 

a separate allegation concern(s), if not currently resolved)

2.13 If an OI investigation was opened, and review of the alleger’s interview transcript 

identified new issues or contained information suggesting a change in investigation 

priority, the allegation was re-ARB’d to discuss these issues. 

2.14 If the allegation contained security-related concerns, the concerns were categorized, 

as received, assuming they were true, for the purpose of determining how much detail 

could ultimately be provided to the alleger.

2.15 ARB held 6 months after initial ARB and every 4 months thereafter (unless the only 

open issue(s) involve OI, DOL, or other matters not under staff control)

2.16 Other follow-up ARBs are held, as appropriate (e.g., new/clarifying info provided by 

alleger, preliminary findings indicated an OI priority change was in order)

3.0 Acknowledgement Letter

3.1 Letter issued within 30 calendar days of receipt by the agency. (unless transferred 

from OIG – in such cases, date received from OIG is the action office receipt date). 

3.2 Letter clearly stated the alleger’s concerns, preferably in a separate enclosure.

3.3 Letter included information about allegation process identity protection policy.

3.4 If allegation included a discrimination concern, letter provided DOL rights.

3.5 If allegation included a discrimination concern that constituted a prima facie showing, 

letter included an offer of Early ADR

3.6 If allegation included security concerns, letter informed the alleger that NRC feedback 

regarding the concern may be limited.

3.7 If action office’s intent was to obtain information external to the agency to support 

evaluation (via RFI or referral), it was discussed in the acknowledgement letter.

3.8 Letter informed alleger of disposition or referral of items not being addressed as 

allegations (e.g, OIG referrals, non-NRC matters referred to local, state, or federal 

government agencies, issues related to Agreement State officials, etc.), and a point of 

contact was provided to the alleger. (This may also be done via a status or closure 

letter.) Alleger’s name was not released externally without the alleger’s permission. 

3.9 Acknowledgment letter concurred in by appropriate staff and the OAC

3.10 Acknowledgement letter sent via a mechanism that allowed for verification of receipt 

(or alleger was requested to verify receipt of electronic correspondence)
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

335

4.0 Allegation Evaluation 

4.1 Allegation evaluated as timely as possible, considering concern complexity.

4.2 Actions designated by the ARB were completed as assigned and in a timely manner

4.3 Alleger was contacted if additional detail and/or supporting information was needed 

4.4 If an inspection was conducted, it was consistent with ARB assigned action and safety 

significance, and fully addressed the concern(s).

4.5 If an allegation-related inspection effort was documented in an inspection report, the 

report documentation did not fingerprint the alleger.

4.6 Documentation of evaluation in support of concern/allegation closure was clear, free of 

errors, and supported a conclusion as to whether the concern(s) were valid.

4.7 If allegation involved an unsubstantiated OI case or assist related to a potential 

wrongdoing matter, the file contained documentation of the 3-week e-mail process. 

4.8 If a concern within an allegation file was dispositioned as a “non-allegation,” the file 

includes an explanation as to why the concern was not an allegation. 

4.9 If concern evaluation resulted in a regulatory action (NOV, NCV, etc.), the file included 

the inspection record or other documentation of the action.

4.10 If concern evaluation resulted in a regulatory action, the licensee was notified before 

or at the same time the alleger was notified of the regulatory action.

5.0 Periodic Status

5.1 Status letter issued to the alleger every 6 months for allegation files open >180 days.

5.2 If supplemental concerns/details were provided by the alleger, they were 

acknowledged in a status letter (or included in a new allegation).

5.3 Status letter(s) provided closure documentation for any concerns closed since the 

previous status letter and noted concerns remaining under review.

5.4 If a discrimination concern involved an open DOL case, and if a related OI 

investigation was completed, both the alleger (via a status letter) and the licensee 

were informed about the results of the investigation (letter to licensee put in ADAMS). 

5.5 Status letter(s) were clear and free of errors.

5.6 Status letter(s) were concurred in by appropriate staff and the OAC

5.7 Status letter sent via a mechanism that allowed for verification of receipt (or alleger 

was requested to verify receipt of electronic correspondence)

6.0 Request for Information (RFI) to Licensee 

6.1 RFI letter provided sufficient info to enable the licensee to resolve the issue without 

fingerprinting the alleger

6.2 If a verbal RFI was made (e.g., in response to an OSI), a record was created and 

placed in the allegation file regarding the information provided to the licensee. Verbal 

RFI was followed up with a written RFI.

6.3 The RFI letter:

- included the allegation # on the cover page and top right-hand corner of other pages 

and pages were marked, as appropriate

- excluded identifying information related to the alleger or other individuals and 

otherwise did not compromise the alleger’s identity (in a few cases, alleger’s name 

and/or names of other implicated individuals may be provided to the licensee verbally, 

if necessary, and agreed to by the alleger)

- requested licensee to limit distribution of RFI letter and its enclosure
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

336

- requested that licensee respond only to the OAC (not the public docket)

- conveyed expectations for independence, scope, evaluator qualification, and basis 

for determining numbers of interviews and sample sizes

- requested contact from licensee to discuss plan for evaluation

- requested that licensee’s response identify any violations and include causal 

analyses, corrective actions and generic implications

- did not include allegers verbatim incoming correspondence (normally)

- described inadequate licensee internal response efforts (if alleger had raised the 

concern internally and was not satisfied with the licensee’s feedback)

6.4 RFI letter sent to a single licensee point of contact

6.5 RFI letter concurred in by appropriate staff and the OAC

6.6 Allegation file included a record of action office discussion with licensee (callback) 

regarding the licensee’s RFI evaluation plan

6.7 If licensee RFI response was determined to be inadequate, proper actions were taken 

by responsible staff in response (e.g., re-ARB (if appropriate), phone call to licensee, 

discussion w/licensee management) and “Inadequate RFI Response” action was 

recorded in AMS describing why responsible staff found it inadequate.

7.0 Agreement State Issues

7.1 Concerned individual was informed that NRC is compelled to provide a concern about 

an Agreement State licensee to the Agreement State

7.2 If concerned individual agreed that NRC could provide his/her identity to the 

Agreement State, along with his/her concern(s), the information was forwarded, 

through the Regional State Agreement Officer (RSAO), to the Agreement State. (Such 

matters are not processed as allegations. If an allegation number was opened in AMS, 

it was re-categorized as a “non-allegation.”)

7.3 If concerned individual did not want NRC to provide his/her identity to the Agreement 

State, the concern(s) was/were processed as an allegation, with NRC as intermediary. 

NRC provided the Agreement State’s response to the alleger.

7.4 If the matter was processed as an allegation, the information that was forwarded to the 

Agreement State for evaluation did not fingerprint the alleger.

7.5 If a concern involved the performance of an Agreement State program or actions of 

Agreement State officials, it was provided to NMSS for processing, and was not 

processed as an allegation.

8.0 Allegation Transfers and TIAs/TARs

8.1 If an allegation was transferred to another region/office, the other region/office was 

contacted, and agreed to the transfer.

8.2 If the allegation was not transferred promptly, the receiving office and the office to 

which the allegation was transferred reached agreement as to which office would hold 

the initial ARB and prepare/send the acknowledgment letter (if one was necessary).

8.3 If a TIA or TAR was requested, the response received by the action office was 

complete and as timely as possible. (If an extended review was anticipated, the action 

office periodically reminded the office performing the TIA or TAR of the allegation 

closure timeliness goals.) 

9.0 Government and Other Referrals

9.1 Allegation-related referrals to other federal government agencies were made 
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

337

appropriately (e.g., DOE, DOT, EPA, FEMA, MMLs).

9.2 Industrial safety issues were handled in accordance with NRC Manual Chapter 1007; 

referrals to OSHA were made, as appropriate.

9.3 Issues involving both an Agreement State and another government agency were 

referred to both.

9.4 Alleger/CI was provided with contact information regarding the referral.

9.5 Alleger/CI’s identity was not released outside NRC without his/her permission.

9.6 Government and other referral letters concurred in by appropriate staff and the OAC.

10.0 Allegation Closure

10.1 Allegation file included a closure letter to the alleger or a closure memo to the 

allegation file (if the alleger was anonymous or if contact was not possible or proper) 

10.2 Action office captured and responded to all concerns within the allegation

10.3 Allegation file contained sufficient documentation to support closure of all concerns

10.4 If allegation involved an unsubstantiated OI case or assist, and OI interviewed more 

individuals than the alleger, a letter was sent to the licensee providing OI’s 

conclusion (after the 3-week e-mail comment period) and placed in ADAMS. 

10.5 The closure letter to the alleger or closure memo to the file:

- identified each concern as provided or modified by the alleger, preferably in a 

separate enclosure

- if an RFI was sent, closure letter described licensee’s evaluation and response (and 

did not provide the licensee’s conclusion or include a copy of the licensee’s response 

– only NRC’s conclusion is relevant)

- documented NRC evaluation and conclusion (if an RFI was sent, also documented 

NRC’s evaluation of RFI response including any independent verification)

- described enforcement action, if taken, or pending enforcement, as appropriate

- attached supporting closure documentation, as appropriate (e.g., inspection report, 

OI report synopsis/summary, enforcement documentation (if available))

- If concern evaluation resulted in a documented regulatory action, the closure 

documentation included the inspection record and disposition of the action or, if yet to 

be issued, indicated that the regulatory action was to be made public in the future.

10.6 If a discrimination concern included DOL involvement, the related allegation file was 

not closed until after the final DOL decision was made (there are rare exceptions, 

e.g., if the discrimination concern has already been resolved via Early ADR).

10.7 If DOL published a finding that the alleger was discriminated against, staff considered 

follow-up action per established NRC guidance (letter requesting licensee feedback 

re: SCWE impacts, enforcement)

10.7 If a discrimination concern was resolved through Early ADR, evidence of OGC’s 

approval of the settlement agreement was included in the allegation file.

10.8 Appropriate guidance was followed regarding the closure of security-related concerns 

in terms of the amount of information provided external to NRC

10.9 Closure letter was concurred in by appropriate staff and the OAC

10.10 Closure letter sent via a mechanism that allowed for verification of receipt (or alleger 

was requested to verify receipt of electronic correspondence)

11.0 Allegation Response After Closure (RAC)

11.1 Negative feedback provided by an alleger after a concern or allegation was closed 

(i.e., a RAC) was discussed at an ARB meeting.
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

338

11.2 RAC was appropriately dispositioned and responded to in a reasonable time frame. 

11.3 Initial feedback provided in ~ 30 days. If initial feedback was not the final response to 

the RAC, it may be accomplished by phone or e-mail, unless it is an acknowledgment 

letter for a newly opened allegation. Final RAC response provided in writing.

11.4 Response to the RAC was included in the allegation file (or the file contained alternate 

justification for not responding to the RAC, if appropriate). 

11.5 If the RAC resulted in the opening of another allegation file, the first file referenced the 

new file.

11.6 RAC response concurred in by appropriate staff and the OAC

11.7 RAC response sent via a mechanism that allowed for verification of receipt (or alleger 

was requested to verify receipt of electronic correspondence)
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

339

Exhibit 25 

RFI Licensee Callback – Conversation Record 

Allegation Number: -20 -A- Responsible Branch: 

Facility: Concern Number(s): Call Date: 

NRC Call Participant(s): Licensee Call Participant(s):

Brief Summary of Concerns in RFI:

Conversation Summary:

Does licensee’s plan of action 

appear likely to result in an 

appropriate response? Y N 

If No, why?

Do you think additional ARB discussion 

is necessary to ensure proper allegation 

evaluation? Y N 

If Yes, why?

Prepared By: Date Prepared:

Title:

Provide completed form to Allegation Program staff along with available supporting documentation (e.g., 

licensee e-mail, etc.)
NRC Allegation Manual, Rev. 1 4/23/2015 

340

Exhibit 26 

Supporting Information Related to a Failure-to-Hire Discrimination Concern 

1. When did the alleger apply for the job?

- Was the job open when the alleger applied? 

- Did the alleger apply before or after the indicated due date? 

- Did the alleger apply after the position had already been filled? 

2. How did the alleger learn of the job opening?

- Was it advertised? Word-of-mouth? 

- Did the alleger apply for a specific position or any available position? 

3. Why did the alleger think he/she was qualified for the job?

- What were the job requirements? 

- How do the alleger’s qualifications compare to the posted job requirements?

- Did the alleger have past work experience in jobs with similar job requirements? 

4. Why was the alleger rejected from the job for which he/she applied?

5. What was the alleger’s suggested reason for not getting the job?

- Was it because he/she engaged in protected activity? 

- Was it because of his/her work experience/credentials? 

6. How recently has the alleger worked in the nuclear industry?

7. What is the alleger’s geographic proximity to the job for which he/she applied?

8. How was the alleger informed that he/she did not get the job?

- Was the message provided via letter, phone call, e-mail, or in person? 

- What reasons (if any) did the employer provide for not hiring the alleger? 

- Was the alleger informed that another applicant was hired? 

- If so, how do the alleger’s qualifications compare with the other individual 

9. Were other applicants rejected for the same position at the same time?

- If so, did the alleger know how many, who they were, and why they were not hired? 

10. After the alleger learned that he/she was not hired, did the employer keep the position open

and hire someone else?

- Did the alleger know who was hired for the job for which he/she applied? 

- Did the alleger know the qualifications of the person who was hired? 

- Did the alleger feel that the person who was hired was qualified for the job? 

- Did the alleger offer a suggestion as to why the other person was hired and he/she was 

not?