ML20058K209
| ML20058K209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-90-215, NUDOCS 9006200420 | |
| Download: ML20058K209 (166) | |
Text
R MMMMM 1
RELEASED TO THE PDR- ;
f.s ua -Ai:
- //u cA m
i Jm a.:....u. < q o........... q...
e POLICY ISSUE (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
June 18, 1990 SECY-90-215 Enri The Commissioners fr9m:-
James M. Tay1or Executive Director for Operations
-Subiect:
TRANSMITTAL OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL ON DIFFERING' PROFESSIONAL-VIEWS OR 0 PINIONS (DPVs/DP0s)
Puroose:
- To transmit the Special Review Panel's '
recommendations.
Backaround:
A Special Review Panel' was appointed to evaluate the effectiveness of NRC Manual Chapter 4125, Differing Professional Views or. Opinions, and NRC Manual Chapter 4126, Open Door Policy, as revised'and approved September 30, 1988.
To accomplish this task, an employee-survey was conducted, interviews were conducted with both submitters of DPVs/DP0s and-Review Panel Chairpersons, and a number:of agency documents on the process were reviewed.
Discussion:
On the basis of this information, the Panel has identified four recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the process:'
o Continue to' emphasize the importance of-an effective and practical DPV/DP0 policy and incorporate a number of clarifications and revisions to Manual Chapter 4125.-
improve employee understanding of the DPV/DP0 o
policy and its proper implementation through several initiatives' including distributing a-brochure and an all-employeos announcement, employee training, and identifying a-specific.
point of contact to advise on use of the process.
NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE DW2 d
{N ocou,,,
(Q
)
.g VMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMA
' [s; 1
2-
[
h 1
l>
o Continue to implement' actions-to-improve the-o t
J organizational climate for' submitting a differing l
professional viewpoint through conferences, communication courses; and recognition of..
managers and' employees who have contributed to-F the missionf of the agency by properly using the system.
o Communicate: to_ all employees additional information on;the NRC Open Door Policy as one of l
. a-number of_ op.tions for expressing professionali i
views.
I endorse these recommendations.as well'as a number of constructive' suggestions ~in the body of the' report.-
In addition, thelSpecial. Review-Panel was ask'e'd to =
i identify empicyees whose-DPV/DP0 made a significant contribution to-the agency and public health and safety but were not adequately recognized for their contribution.'-lAt the time of the Panel's review, four 1
of the DPVs/DP0s filed were not complete. Therefore, l
the Panel concluded that consideration for recognition in those cases should be-deferred.: Three other-DPVs/DP0s had been fully considered.and. resolved..The Panel concluded that ~special recognition;was not; warranted in those cases.
Recommendations:
The staff intends to-begin: implementation of:the.
Panel's recommendations,. including proposed Manual?
Chapters 4125 and 4126,-ten' days:from the date of this paper unless notified otherwise by the Commission, j
~
J mes M r
i xecutive rector for Operations
{
Enclosures:
1 As stated SECY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary,'SECY will notify the' staff on lionday, July 2, 1990,' that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to the i
action proposed in this paper, y
DISTRIBUTION:
T Ccmmissioners-GPA OGC EDO OIG ACRS s
L LSS ACNN l
ASLEP,
- .SECY
~
a
-e---
ne
)-'
NUREG-1414-
-)
y v
. ij j
. i
(
i p
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS y
1990 SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL-
+
(
1 5
l l'
-l
(
)
I i-
[
t.
e l
. l i
c I
l r
a i
I i
i
. ~.
. ~_
~-
.)
^
t ;q t
s d
1 i
ABSTRACT!
j 1
In December 1989, the Executive Director for Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a) pointed a Special Review Panel to ev>luate the.
.l effectiveness-of NRC Manual? Clapter 4125,c Differing Professional views: or:
0 pinions,:and NRC Manual Chapter 4126, Open= Door Policy.
In accordance with' Section E of NRC-Appendix 4125, the Panel-was responsible for assessing
";.. the informal-and formal processes for dealing with differing professional-views or opinions,- including the effectiveness of the processes, how well they are understood by employees,:and the organizational-climate for having these i
views -and opinions aired and properly. decided." This report presents the:
Special~ Review Panel's evaluation of-the NRC's current' process for dealing with Differing Professional Views or Opinions. :Provided in this report-are the-
[
results of an employee opinion survey on the process; highlights.and' '
3 suggestions from interviews with, individuals who had submitted a Differing-Professional View or Opinion, as well as with' agency managers directly involved with the' Differing Professional Views or Opinions process;.and proposed.
~
revisions to Manual Chapters 4125 and 4126.
3 l
v
.. q o
i l
NUREG-1414 111
+
i a
o Cf88TDfiS ABSTRACT;.................................................................iii FOREWOR0............................................
..................... vii EXECUTIVE SilMMARY.........................................................
ix SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL REP 0RT...............................................
1 BACKGR0VND...........................................................
1 PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................
1 Effectiveness.....................................
2 How Well Understood.............................................
3 Organizational Climate..........................................
4 Open Door Policy................................................
5 METHODOLOGY..........................................................
6 j
APPENDICES A
Special Review Panel Charter B
Survey Questionnaire and Results C
Interview Questions and Results D
Manual Chapter 4125, as approved September 30, 1988 E
Manual Chapter 4126, as approved September 30, 1988 F
Noposed Manual Chapter 4125 G
Proposed Manual Chapter 4126 1
i NUREG-1414 v
H I
a
s FOREWORD
. In December 1989, the Executive Director for Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission effectiveness of curren(NRC) appointed a Special Review Panel to evaluate the t NRC Manual-Chapters.4125 and 4126.. The Panel members were:
1 Paul E.-Bird Director, Office of Personnel. Appointed as Panel Chairperson.
Clemens J. Heltemes, Jr.
Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
j Peter C.' Hearn Senior Reactor Operations Engineer, Vice President, Chapter 208, National Treasury i
Employees Union.
i John M. Montgomery Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IV.
Others who contributed extensively to this project include:
l Maria Rucci Dolan who provided writing and editing support.for the Commission report and the resulting NUREG document; and who managed the design, administration and analysis of the employee opinion survey, J. David Woodend who provided advice and guidance in the revisions of Manual Chapters 4125 and 4126.
Ter'y Brown who provided text processing support, t
e NUREG-1414 vil
.,a a_.
,,s,
.n.-.
,<v
,4__
me,
EXECLITIVE SUMERY A free and open discussion of differing professional views is essential to the development of sound regulatory policy and. decisions.
In recognition of that fact, sise 1976 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ways for employees to bring their differing professional (NRC) has provided views to the attention of the highest levels of management.
In 1980, NRC Manual Chapter 4125 was published outlining and describing the NRC's Differing Professional Opinion policy.
In mid-1987, a Special Review Panel examined this policy. As a result.
of that Panel's findings and recommendations, published in NUREG-1290,.
modifications were made and the current Manual Chapter 4125. Differing Professional Views or Opinions, and Manual Chapter 4126, Open Door Policy, were approved September 30, 1988.
In accordance with Section' E of Appendix 4125, a Special Review Panel is to periodically assess the effectiveness of the revised' procedures.
The first such panel was appointed by the Executive Director for 0)erations in December.
1989. To examine the current policies and procedures, tie Special Review Panel conducted an employee opinion survey, held interviews, and reviewed the processing c' actual Differing Professional Views (DPys) and Differing Professior-epinions (DP0s).
On the basis of its review, the Special Review Panel came to the conclusion that revisions to the policies have had a positive effect; however, there is still room for improvement.
One specific improvement noted was the inclusion of the less formal DPV process. While the DPV/DP0 process is a continuum, a DPV. requires less documentation and occurs at a lower level in the organization. The Panel believes this modification to the polic,7 should continue.
Additionally, the Panel identified several areas where further improvements are warranted.
N
)'
The Panel's findings are as follows:
o EFFECTIVENESS Although there is some indication that a greater number of agency employees believe the DPV/DP0 process is effective, a number of minor changes and clarifications to Manual Chapter 4125 are warranted to reflect current experience and to further improve program effectiveness.
NUREG-1414 ix
-j
i o
HOW WELL UNDERSTOOD Virtually all agency employees are aware of the D W/DP0 process; however, procedures for addressing DPVs/DP0s are not being consistently followed.
J 4
o ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE i
I While there are some indications that the NRC organizational climate for i
considering differing professional viewpoints has improved, there are also indications that point to continuing deficiencies in the climate; i
therefore, continued efforts in this regard are needed.
]
o OPEN DOOR POLICY A substantial number of NRC employees are not awsre of the NRC's Open Door Policy.
(
Based on these findings, the Panel recomn. ends that NRC:
r Continue to emphasize the im)ortance of an effective and practical DPV/DP0 o
policy and incorporate a num>er of clarifications and revisions to Manual Chapter 4125.
Improve manager and employee understanding of the DPV/DP0 policy and its o
proper implementation through several initiatives, including:
Providing training to staff and management officials on the DPV/DP0 process; Publishing a revised Manual Chapter 4125 that clarifies the DPV/DP0 process and includes a flow chart diagramming the process; Identifying the Director, Office of Personnel, to serve as a specific point of contact who can provide advice on the policy and its application to managers and employees; j
Distributing a brochure to all employees that explains the process in i
simplified terms; Distributing an all-emp.oyees announcement highlighting the important changes made to the policy as a result of this review and identifying the point of contact.
Continue to implement actions to improve the organizational climate for o
submitting a differing professional viewpoint.
Communicate to all employees additional information on the NRC Open Door o
Policy as one of a number of options for expressing professional views, j
In addition, the Special Review Panel was asked to identify employees whose DPV/DP0 made a significant contribution to the agency and public health and safety but were not adequately recognized for their contribution. At the time
'NUREG-1414 x
I
of the Panel's review, four of the DPVs/DP0s filed were not complete.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that consideration for recognition in those cases should be deferred.
Three other DPVs/DP0s had been fully considered and resolved. The Panel concluded that special recognition was not warranted in those cases.
l I
l i
4 i
I l
l NUREG-1414 xi
_ - - _ - - - - -. - _ - ~ - - -. _, - - -
SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL REPORT The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NL) is regularly faced with making difficult decisions--decisions that can have profound impacts on public health and safety and on our nation's nuclear energy program. As a result, in making important safety decisions the Commission must have at its disposal the best information available, for the NRC to successfully meet its regulatory responsibilities, the agency must ensure that the decision-making process includes and considers all points of view in an organizational climate that promotes open discussion.
BACKGROUND The NRC's commitment to a free and open discussion of professional views is illustrated in the NRC Open Door Policy (first communicated to agency employees in 1976) and the NRC Differing Professional Opinion Policy (formcily esta'lished in 1980).
These policies permit employees at all levels to provide o
professional viewpoints on virtually all matters pertaining to the agenc/'s mission.
In 1987, a Commission appointed panel conducted an extensive review of these policies. As a result of this Panel's findings and recommendations, the policies were separated and amended into Manual Chapter 4125, Differing Professional Views or Opinions, and Manual Chapter 4126, Open Door Policy, as approved September 30, 1988.
Copies of Manual Chapters 4125 and 4126 are included as Appendices D and E, respectively, in December 1989, the Executive Director for Operations appointed a Special Review Panel to assess the effectiveness of the revised procedures.
Specifically, this panel was tasked to assess the informal and formal processes l
for dealing with Differing Professional Views and Opinions (DPVs/DP0s),
including the effectiveness of the processes, how well they are understood by employees, and the organizational climate for having JPVs/DP0s aired and properly decided.
PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDA710NS After reviewing the status of the current DPV/DP0 t rocess and Open Door Policy, the Special Review Panel has concluded that recent revisions to the policies have had a positive effect. A recent survey of NRC employees shows that a large majority of the NRC staff are aware of the process and know where to obtain additional information if needed.
However; there is still room for improvement.
Some question remains as to whether or not the NRC organizational climate promotes open discussion and free use of the DPV/DP0 process.
In l
addition, the process and procedures for addressing DPVs/DP0s are not being followed consistently.
In this regard, the panel identified several areas where further improvements are warranted, o
EFFECTIVENESS FINDING:
Althouah there is some indication that a arenter number of aaency employees believe the DPV/DP0 nrocess is effective. a number of gjnor chances and clarifications to Manual Chanter 4125 are warranted to reflect current eroerience and to further imDrove procram effectiveness.
There has been a positive effect on employee perceptions of the DPV/DP0 Wicy since the last revision.
Specifically, 39% of those responding in the survey indicated that the current policy is effective. This compares to 27% who so responded in the previous employee survey.
The Panel believes that this improvement is in part due to the addition of the less formal DPV for considering differing viewpoints.
For example, the DPV process seems to be effective in improving communication and addressing issues that previously would have required EDO or Commission action as a DPO.
Yet the Panel was troubled by the fact that almost 60% of the survey respondents either did not know whether, or disagreed that, the policy provides an effective means of employee expression.
Further, the Panel was not certain how to interpret the apparent low usage of the DPV/DP0 process.
On one hand, the few DPVs/DP0s actually filed may indicate that there is a high degree of consensus among the professional staff on the agency's direction and positions.
Given the nature of the NRC's work and the number, complexity, and importance of the issues, the few DPVs/DP0: submitted could indicate that differing viewpoints are, for the most part, being addressed and satisfactorily resolved without using the DPV/DP0 process.
On the other hand, the Panel had some indications (e.g., survey results, oral remarks, and the written comments from an individual involved with an ongoing issue) that the process is not frequently used, and thus is not highly effective because of the current organizational climate.
Some staff members continue to fear reprisal and believe there is a culture within the NRC that does not want to expose any weakness or error in previous NRC decisions or positions. Negative perceptions about the DPV/DP0 process seem to be widespread, and in some cases, appear deeply held.
However, the Panel had little evidence or definitive basis to separate perceptian from reality, and therefore make an informed and independent judgment regarding why there are so few DPVs/DP0s.
On balance, the Panel believes that improvements have been made over the last two years and that the proper approach is to (a) continue to emphasize the importance of the DPV/DP0 policy; ensure that DPVs/DP0s receive a tho(b) insist on its proper implementation; (c) rough, independent..and competent review; (d) reward staff and management involved in identifying and reviewing difficult but sound issues; and (e) continue to periodically assess the effectiveness of the program, the organizational climate, and staff and management understanding of the policy's scope, implementation, and results, including the following:
NVREG-1414 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue to emohasize the imoortance of an effective and oractical DPV/DP0 colicy and incoroorate a numb?r of clarifications and revisions to Manual Chaoter 4125.
Permit confidentiality but do not allow anonymous submissions.
Anonymous submissions may be made through other established channels, such as the allegations program and the Office of the Inspector General.
Strengthen the provision for the handling of issues of immediate safety concern.
Have the Commission and EDO provide summaries of DP0s and their resulting i
dispositions in the Weekly Information Report.
Give Office Directors, Regional Administrators, and Review Panels specific authority to request technical assistance from another Office / Region or from outside the agency to address a highly specialized issue.
Specify that DP0 reviews are to be conducted independently and to the extent possible should not involve individuals who have directly participated in the formulation of the agency's position that is at issue.
o HOW WELL UNDERSTOOD FINDING:
Virtually all aaency emplovtis are aware of the DPV/DP0 orocess:
however. Drocedures for addressina DPVs/DP0s are not beina consistent 1v followed.
The vast majority of NRC employees (95%) know about and are generally familiar with the DPV/DP0 policy.
Furthermore, 56% of survey respondents agree that the DPV/DP0 process is understandable.
However, additional esforts are needed to highlight the difference between a DPV and a DP0 since 35% of the employees are not aware of the difference.
The Panel was also troubled by the lack of consistent handling of the DPVs and i
l DP0s.
In the Panel's judgment, possible causes of this lack of consistency l
include the following:
(a) the current Manual Chapter is not as clear as it could be; (b) staff and management have not received training in this policy and process; (c) there is no specific point of contact to serve as an agency expert; and (d) there have been so few cases that there is no experience base to guide those involved.
Among the inconsistencies identified to the Panel were the foirowing:
(a) a DPV was addressed to th-CD0 rather than to the Office Director; (b) DPV panels were convened that did not include a representative endorsed by the submitters; (c) a DPV handled as if it were a DP0; (d) a DPV was reviewed by a specially con:tituted ;anel rather than the standing panel; (e) the time periods specified we're exceeded and delays in resolution occurred; (f) DP0 results were forwarded to the employee's direct supervisor rather than to the submitter; and (g) employee views laoeled and requested to be handled as a DPV were in fact handled outside of the Manual Chapter process.
J
.. _.. _. _ _. _ _ ~.,
RECOMMENDATION:
Imorove mannaer and emolovee understandina of the DPV/DP0 Apliev and its oroner imolementation through several initiatives. includina:
Providing training to staff and management officials on the DPV/DP0 process.
Publishing a revised Manual Chapter 4125 that clarifies the DPV/DP0 process and includes a flow chart diagramming the process.
Identifying the Director, Office of Personnel, to serve as a specific point of contact who can provide advice on the policy and its application to managers and employees.
Distributing a brochure to all employees that explains the process in simplified terms.
Distributing an all-employee announcement highlighting the important changes made to the policy as a result of this review and identifying the point of contact, o
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FINDING: While there are some indications that the NRC oraanizational climate for considerina differina orofessional viewooints has imorovah there are also indications that point to continuina deficiencies in thg climate: therefore continued efforts in this reaard are needed.
While 28% of those who responded to the survey believe the current climatt; is
'i favorable for expressing a differing viewpoint, a substantial number of respondents have no opinion (35%) or de not find it favorable (36%). Hoyever, this appears to be an improvement in organizational climate.
(The 1987 survey indicated that approximately 50% of the staff believed that filing a DP0 could adversely affect their careers.)
Employees continue to be concerned that filing a DPV/DP0 will be viewed negatively and, as a result, reprisal is likely to occur.
As reported i^ the employee survey, fear of reprisal was the reason most noted for lack of pslicy effectiveness (19%).
In addition, several individuals echoed this percepiion with comments such as " suicidal to your career," and " considered a troublemaker." The second most noted reason for lack of effectiveness (11%)
is the perception that reviewers are predisposed to the outcome of a DPV/DPO.
The Panel believes that many of the negative perceptions associated with filing a DPV/DP0 can be changed over time by enlightened and sensitive management and by proper im)lementation of the DPV/DP0 policy. Top management endorsement and periodic emplasis are, of course, important, but perhaps more important is how issues raised by the staff are addressed and handled by line supervisors. With openness and a willingness to seriously understand and consider differing views, and a willingness to change, correct, and update decisions when justified, there will be little need for employees to use the DPV/DP0 process.
m
Further, over time, and with continued positive experience with the DPV/DPO-process, the negative perceptions should start to fade in the minds of most employees.
Thus, success in obtaining feedback and input regarding a differing view depends on treating all professional views seriously and on the proper implementation of the DPV/DP0 process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue to imolement actions to imorove the oroanizational climate for submittino a differino orofessional viewooint.
Reinforce the importance of the DPV/DP0 policy during conferences, office workshops, and staff meetings, and emphasize that DPVs/DP0s can contribute to the accomplishment of the agency's mission.
Emphasize to supervisors that there is no negative connotation associated with one of their employees submitting a DPV/DPO, and note the importance of proper and timely processing of such views.
Em)hasize to all employees that there may be serious consequences to the pu)1ic and the NRC for not correcting erroneous, outdated, or restricted positions.
I Encourage attendance at courses on Effective Listening, Effective Communication (group and/or intersersonal), _ and Conflict Resolution.
During these courses, employees siould be made aware of the importance of professional feedback and the various ways and means of providing it to ensure that the agency meets its regulatory mission.
Continue to periodically review actual submittals to ensure that the process is working as intended, and that individuals raising important l
issues are suitably recognized and rewarded, o
OPEN DOOR POLICY FINDING:
A substantial number of NRC employees are not aware of the NRC's Ooen Door Policy.
The results of the employee survey indicate that 24% of the respondents are not aware of the NRC Open Door Policy, and approximately 45% of the respondents chose the option "no opinion" or " don't know" to answer the remaining questions regarding the Open Door Policy.
Those respondents at higher level 3 of management report the greatest familiarity with and understanding of the Open Door Policy.
As reported in the survey results, only 2% of Assistant Directors or above are unaware of this policy with 88% somewhat or very familiar with it.
On the other hand, 29% of non-supervisory employees are not aware of the policy and only 40% are somewhat or very familiar with it.
.m
--..,,-_...m.-.
When compared to the responses given for the DPV/DP0 process, the perception of the Open Door Policy as an effective means of expressing a professional view is slightly less (37% to 39%), but the climate is perceived more favorable (38% to 28%).
RECQWENDATION:
Communicate to all emolovees additional information on the NRC Doen Door Policy as one of a number of ootions for exoressino professional views.
Issue an all-employee announcement explaining the NRC Open Door Policy as one of several avenues for providing NRC employees with a means for expressing a professional view. Other avenues should also be highlighted including (a higher level) managers within the employee's Office, (c) inclusion ofdiscussions w separate points of view in Staff papers, and (d) as appropriate, discussions with other NRC Offices including the Office of the Inspector General or the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
Discuss during in-house courses, including managerial training, the Open Door Policy and other options available to agency employees for expressing professional views.
In addition, the Special Review Panel was asked to identify employees whose DPV/DP0 made a significant contribution to the agency and public health and i
safety but were not adequately recognized for their contribution. At the time of the Panel's review, four of the DPVs/DP0s filed were not complete.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that consideration for recognition in those cases should be deferred. Three other DPVs/DP0s had been fully considered and resolved. The Panel concluded that special recognition was not warranted in those cases.
METHODOLOGY The Panel's findings and recommendations provided in this report are based primarily on four sources of inform;+%n:
(1) the results of an NRC employee survey addressing perceptions of the NRC's Differing Professional Views or Opinions Policy and Open Door Policy; (2) Panel interviews with Review Panel Chairpersons and submitters of DPVs/DP0s; (3) background documents on the DPV/DP0 process and its use; and (4) personal knowledge and experience from Panel members' involvement in the process.
Emolovee Survev To gather information from agency employees, the Panel used an agency survey.
The specifics of the survey process are discussed below.
Basic demographic information, perceptions of the current DPV/DP0 process, and perceptions of the Open Door Policy were identified as content areas to be included in the survey.
For the purposes of this study, demographic information was collected on the respondent's current classification and the NUREG-1414 6
office or region in which the resp ydent works.. The principal focus of the survey was to gather information on the effectiveness, understandability, and organizational climate of the DPV/DP0 process and Open Door Policy.
After the draft questionnaire was developed, the Special Review Panel made modifications and approved the document.
The survey was distributed to all non-clerical employees in headquarters and all five regions (approximately 2500 NRC emplo. vees). Anonymity was guaranteed to all respondents.
A total of 1282 questionnaires were returned and tat @atrJ by the Atlantic Research Corporation of Washington, D.C.
Frequencie, and percentages for each question (along with cross classifications by %..vgraphic information and a brief narrative) are provided in Appendix B.
Panel Interviews Prior to conducting the interviews, questions were drafted and later modified by the Special Review Panel.
Specific questions were asked of Region and Office Review Panel Chairpersons, and similar questions were asked of DPV/DP0 submitters.
Interviews were designed to specifically address the experience and possible concerns of the individual.
Most interviews were conducted by telephone with all Panel members in attendance.
(Note:
one interview was conducted in person and two interviews were conducted with three members of the Panel.)
A summary of these interv;ews is provided in Appendix C.
Backaround Documents and Guidelines The Panel reviewed a number of documents on the DPV/DP0 process, including the previous assessment and documentation regarding the use of the process. These documents provided input for assessing the degree to which the current policy i
is being properly implemented, the degree of improvement that has occurred since the last asa ssment, and the specific changes that could be made to improve the process.
w-,-,
APPENDIX A SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL CHARTER l
i 1
- i l
l a
j i
e-UNITIO STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N maannston.o.c.neens
\\ e...* h DEC t 4 9H
)
j 3
1 6
l MEMORANDUM FOR:
Paul E. Bird, Director 1
Office of Personnel FROM:
James M. Taylor 1
i Executive Director i
for Operations
+
i l
l
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFES$10NAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL i
SECY memorandum dated June 21,1988, subject, COMLZ-88 24/24A - COMSECY 88 4, DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS, states:
"A review of the effectiveness of l
the new (DPO) procedures should be conducted after they have been in effect for one year." Similarly, POLICY ISSUE (Negative Consent), SECY-88 216. dated l
July 26, 1988', subject, COML2 88-24/24A - COMSECY-88-4, DIFFUTRDlRISIONAL OPIN!0NS, states:
"Af ter the manual chapters (MC 4125 and MC 4126) have been published and in effect for one year, a Differing Professional Opinions (OPO) i Special Review Panel will be convened to review the effectiveness of the new procedures." Since NRC Manual Chapters 4125, Differing Professional Views or Opiniens, and 4126, Open Door Policy, were implemented on September 30 1988, it is time to appoint a new Special Review Panel to review the effectiveness t
of the new procedures. In order to conduct such a review, I.am designating i
you as chairman of the Panel as called for in Manual Chapter 4125.
he~ Panel should include the following members:
i Management Memeer Clemens J. Heltemes i
Regional Member John M. Montgomery Union Member (Tobedetermineo) i i
e In accordance with Section E of NRC Appendix 4125, the Panel should assess the j
informal and formal processes for dealing with differing professional views or opinions, including the effectiveness of the processes, how well they are understood by employees, and the organizational climate for having these views t
or opinions aired and properly decided. The provisions of MC 4126, Open Door l
should also be addressed in this assessment.
In addition, the Review Policy,ill review differing professional views and opinions on any matter Panel w i
L relating to the agency's mission submitted since the last review to identify employees whose differing professional views or opiniens made significant contributions.to the agency or to public health and safety but have not been j
adequately recognized for this contribution.
I i
NUREG-1414 A-1 i
~
.m
__v_..-,.-
.%-_..--,r
-,w.
u.m-4,s_,.m-
--,-.,,v-.-,
o_.-~,.-----,--4.,,,,mw e,
, - - -w_,4.----
- - - -.~--..,,.. - - -. -
,.-------v_-,
The results of the Panel's evaluation should be submitted to as in the fem of a report, including proposed revisions to the Manual Chapters, if any, and award recumendations, if any, by March 16,1990, unless an extension of time is necessary.
~
~
es M. Tay' ecutive Dilector for Operations ec:
E. Jordan, AE00 4
C. Heltemes, AE00 R. Martin, RlY J. Montgomery, R!Y J. Thomas, NTEU l
1 NUREG-1414 A-2 l
O O
l h
APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS I
i W
T
..wa
O e
Differing Professional Opinion Survey Table of Contents i
i 1.
Introduction 2.
Statistical Findings Report
- 3. Description of Appendices i
- 4. Appendices l
NUREG-1414 B-1 1
, o L
f f
i l
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION SURVEY I
I Statistical Findings Report t
}
The-office of Personnel at The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) created and sailed approximately 2500 questionnaires to all l
non-clerical NRC employees.
arc received 1282 completed 5
questionnaires concerning several policies at NRC.
The overall i
j response rate is 51%.
The respondents were comprised of 70.4% in j
i non-supervisory roles, 14.4% in Section chief positions or first line supervisor roles, 6.8% in Branch Chief positions and 8.0%
in Assistant Director positions or higher.
The lowest response was from Region V, accounting for $3 (4.1%) of the respondents, and the highest was from NRR, accounting for 317 (24.7%) of the j
1282 respondents.
As expected the highest percentage of respondents came from NRR as non-supervisory personnel (18.954),
and the lowest response was from the Branch Chiefs in Region IV with no-one responding.
Almost all of the employees who responded (94.8%) have some l.
familiarity with the goals of the Differing Professional View (DPV) or the Differing Professional opinion (DPO) policies.
Also more than half of the respondents (56.2%) understand the process l
i for submitting a DPV or DPO.
35.4% of the respondents are not j
1 aware of the difference in tbs submitting process between DPV and i
DPO, and 59.4% either did h6t know or disagreed that the policy e
is an effective means of employee expression.
The most noted l
I i
NUREG-1414 B-2
' I
.-ir-m.rwm
-e---
e
.. *- a e----vw+rewwmw-r w e ie+w w-wr*-sa-wee-%i-e-
- --w---v-g-ww-e-*'=
r ww+ woy e en a-v, t-
- <w6---ye-way,,
c
-eg-e.egw-"
4 g
reason for lack of policy effectiveness (19.3%
of the.
respondents) is concern of reprisal, some of the open ended responses echoed this concern.
" suicidal to your career",
" Viewed negatively by your supervisor" and
" considered a
troublemaker" were some of the comments offered.
The second most noted reason (10.5% of the respondents) is that the reviewers
)
would be predisposed to the outcome.
s.2% of the respondents are also concerned about negative peer reaction.
It should also be nott, that some respondents who answered "YES" to question 6, j
whether or not the DPV/DP0 is an effective means of expression, still circled answers in question 6A as to why it is not an effective means.
These stated reasons for. lack of policy effectiveness are reiterated in question 7,
on organizational climate for using the DPV or DP0 process.
Only 28.0% agree that the climate is f avorable, while 36.0% disagree and 35.0% have no opinion.
Questions a thru 11 review the open Door Policy (CDP) at NRC.
The majority (75.4%)
of the respondents have some j
familiarity with the CDP.
Most people (44.5%) have no opinion of whether the appropriate use of the CDP is clear.
Those respondents with an opinion (38.3%), tend-to agree that the use of the policy is clear.
While 39.3% of the respondents believe that v
the DPV/DPO is an effective means of professional expression, slightly fewer (36.7%) feel the CDP is an effective means of professional expression.
Alsn less people (15.3% compared to 22.9%) stated that the Open Door Policy is an ineffective means NUREG-1414 B-3
---_.-___---,_-._a.-
,__,,---,s-
_--,-.e-w+
,.,,.,_.--.-,ee.,-,,,w,,,
,__..m,.,,,-,+.-m,,-4.w,
,4,.,_,
_n,,,,,,,n,,-e
-g,,-,
1 I
of expression compared to these who suggested the DPV/DPO is an i
l ineffective means of expression.
It seems the organizational (33.1%) than for j
climate for the CDP is somewhat more f avorable l
the DFV/DPo (28.0%).
It seems less people are familiar with the l
l ODP, causing more people to ansker in the "No opinion"/" Don't j
1 Know' range.
i significance of the previous percentages are test using the i
maximum likelihood ratio estination of -the chi-square statistic.
j i
The frequencies and percentages for each question individually
{
l yield p-values of 0.0001 indicating ~ significant differences i
between the responses of.each question.
As one might-expect, those respondents in. higher levels of f
management clain greater familiarity and - understanding of the i
goals of all three policies (DPV, DPO and ODP).
.In almost every i
question, a relationship can be found which links the Assistant j
t Directors to the very familiar or strongly agrees categories and the non-supervisory personnel to the limited familiarity, not l
i aware or strongly disagree ' categories.
This is echoed by the l
negative correlation coefficients.
For ' Example:
question
- 8, j
familiarity with the goals of the open Door Policy, 88.3% of Assistant Directors are somewhat or very familiar with the policy and only 1.9% are unaware of the policy.
On the other hand 28'.6%
l t
of the respondents in _ non-supervisory roles' are' unaware of the' policy and only 40.2% are somewhat familiar or very familiar with' I
,the policy. _
It is also clear from the answers to question 6A l
i NUREG-1414 B-4 l
that the more levels of management there are above the level of the respondent, the greater the concern about reprisal.
A chi-square statistic is used to test the hypothesis that all the frequencies are equal for any given cell of a cross-tabulation.
The p-values for this statistic
- are very low
(<.0001) in all cases.
This causes us to reject the hypothesis of equality between cells and accept the null hypothesis that all the frequencies are statistically different when comparing question 1 to every other question.
The cross-tabulations between place of work and the other questions revealed some difference in the answers of the other questions for different places of work.
The trends appeared in Region II and Region IV.
For questions 3,
4, 5,
and 11 these places of work appeared to be more familiar with the policies, agree with the effectiveness of the policies, and perceive a more l
f avorable. climate for the policies than the other - places of l
work.
The chi-square p-value statistic, which tests the hypothesis of equality between question 2 frequencies and each of the other questions individually',
revealed significant relationship only between question 2 and questions 1, 3, 4, 5,
6, j
7 and 11.
Questions 8, 9,
and 10, which concern the open door i
- policy, showed no significant relationship between them and question 2 (place of work), as shown by their p-values of 0.075, 0.110, and 0.014 respectively.
In conclusion, it appears that the driving factor which 1
NUREG-1414 B-5 l
e.
.3-e.w s.
j i
i determines an employee's familiarity, understanding or opinion -
about a policy is.the employeefa level.
As the management level i
increased the employees showed increased f amiliarity with the l
submission process, increased understanding of the goals and expressed a more positive attitude toward the policies.
Except employees in Regions II and IV, the place of work question revealed little about the employee's attitudes towards the policies.
i-i m
y i
a e4 d
1 1
1 NUREG-1414 B-6
=
o i
l The following appendices are:
l l
l
{
1.
A list of answers for each question acceepanied by the number who responded (frequency) the l
i percentage-of
- the response (percent) and i
).
cumulative frequencies and percentagen.
{
The number of respondents who added additional i
comments to ther questionnaire follow question 11.
i 2.
A cross-tabulation for question 6 and 6A' is done to reveal how many respondents answered "yes" or i
" don't know" to question 6 and still circled a i
reason in 6A.
i 3.
Cross-tabulations of question 1
compared to i
questions 3-6, 6A part A-D, 7-11.
Question 1
goes.down the side and the other questions go acrosa the top.
In each cell a frequency of I
responses that fell in that category is followed by an overall percent, a row percent'and a column percent.
4.
Cross-tabulations of. question 2
Compared to questions 1, 3-6, 6A,part A-D,.7-11.
Question 2' goes down the side and the other questions go across the top.-
Each these tables continue on a second page.
Also, each cell is read as before.
NUREG-1414 B-7 l
.m
._......-s,,,,,,,-
y
,_..w.w
,,,g,,
,_mn---,.ww-,-
-p.-e,
,,,,.,-,,,,wr
j l
5.
Maximum likelihood ratios of chi-square statistics with ~ p-values (Prom) an6 degrees of freedom (DF)
]
for questions 1 to 11 individually.
6.
Chi-square statistics (VALUE),
p-values (PROB),
degrees of freedom (DF)_ _and correlation coefficients for question'l by question 3Lto 11.
7.
Chi-square statistics (VALUE),
p-values (PROB),
degrees of freedos-(DF) and correlation coefficients for question 2 by question 1 and 3 to 11.
s.
A list of the responses to the-open-ended question (6A part E).
Additional comments indicate either the open-ended question did _ not fit in the 50 characters allowed or elsewhere on the questionnaire were additional comments.
9.
A list of forms numbers with additional comments or open-ended questions with greater than 50 t
characters.
N' l
NUREG-1414 B-8 w
tr e-
-em
---..,-,e-+e v
- w-r w*w'e
+-
'*--v+-
-de
.v-+-*--w--*
w=*----**"r--=-
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + = = - - - - -
-~"s
- ~ " - - - - - -
- 2 4 _ _..., s
.. 4
_s mm...
s._..._.,-m
..~2 m._.
u.
m._.
__m.s.
.. _. ~ _.
~
__..m.m_.-.
...m-I 1
1 I
I 9
4
)
l i
b I
s APPENDIX 1.
l.
i l
E
/
NUREG-1414 B-9 4
1 8
e an T
w
-w wwv-
-f my was r,gw e
g we
---yw mw y----we(we-e-9---
g*
-4*-*--'g T---M'epw ht*
- - + - "
- Nu3100r Refulatsry ComaiCaisn'0 Survav En Differing Professional Views (DFV) and Opinions (DPC) and open Door Policy (00P)
Frequencies and Cross-Classifications Q1: Classification CUNULATIVE CUNULATIVE Q1 FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT Missing 5
0.4 5
0.4 Non-Supervisory 902 70.4 907 70.7 Section Chief 185 14.4 1092 85.2 Branch Chief 87 4.8 1179 92.0 Assistant Drctr 103 8.0 1282 100.0 021-Place of Nork CUNULATIVE CUNULATIVE Q2 FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT l
Missin 11 0.9 11 0.9 Commis ioner Off 106 8.3' 117 9.1 EDO office 196 15.3 313 24.4 AECD 60 4.7 373 29.1 NRR 317 24.7 690 53.8 NNSS 118 9.2 808 63.0 RES 95 7.4 903 70.4 Region I 90 7.0 993 77.5 Region II 80 6.2 1073 83.7 Region III 91 7.1
. 1164 90.8 Region IV 65 5.1 1229 95.9 i
Region V 53 4.1 1282 100.0
)
l Q3: Familiar With Goals of DPV/DP0 l
CUNULATIVE CUMULATIVE I
Q3 FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY
. PERCENT Missing 10 0.8 10 0.8 Very Familiar 203 15.8 213 16.6 Somewhat Famil 498 38.8 711 55.5 Limited Familiar
$15 40.2 1226 95.6 Not Aware 56 4.4 1282 100.0 NUREG-1414 B-10 9
f 9
w t
l Nucicer Regulatsry cosmiccicn's Surycy en DiffCring PrcfCOsitnal Vicws (DPV) cnd Opiniens (DPC) i and open Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross-Classifications Q4: Understand Submitting a DPV/DPO I
i CUNULATIVE CUNUKATIVE l
Q4 FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT Missing 10 0.8 10 0.8 Strongly Agree 91 7.1 101 7.9 Agree 429 49.1 730 56.9 No Opinion 496 38.7 1226 95.6 Disagree 44 3.6 1272 99.2 i
L Strongly Disagr 10 0.8 1282 100.0 Q5: Difference Setween submit of DPV&DPO CUNUIATIVE CUMULATIVE Q5 FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT Missing.
8 0.6 8
0.6 Very Familiar 90 7.0 98 7.6 Somewhat Famil 241 18.8 339 26.4 Limited Familiar 489 38.1 828 64.6 Not Aware 454 35.4 1282 100.0 1
Q6: DPV/DPO Effective Neans Expression l
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE Q6 FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT Missing 17 1.3 17 1.3 Yes 504 39.3 521 40.6 No 293 22.9 814 63.5 Don't Know 468 36.5 1282 100.0 l
l l
Q6a DPV/DPO Process too Cabrsa/Long CUNULATIVE CUNULATIVE
.....' ' ^^........ '"*'""" S!...!'" S""T r***?'"E!....!'"S*"'..
i l
. Mot Circled 1206 94.1 1206 94.1 Reason circled 76 5.9 1282 100.0 NUREG-1414 B-11 L
L L,. _
~
m
I i
Nu21cer Regulattry.CommiC3itn'O'Surv0y cn Differing Professional Views- (DPV) and Opinions (DPO) and Open Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross-classifications Q6bt DPV/DPo Viewed Negatively by Peers CUNULATIVE CUNULATIVE Q6AB FREQUENCY
-PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT Not Circled 1177
' 91. 8
- 1177 91.8 j
Reasor. Circled 105 8.2 1282 100.0 Q6c DPV/DP0 Concerned About Reprisal CUNULATIVE CUMLU TIVE 1
06AC FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT Not Circled 1034=
80.7 1034 80.7 Reason Circled 248 19.3 1282 100.0 Q6d Reviewer Predisposed Outcome DPV T
CUMULATIVE CUNr% TIVE-06AD FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT i
4 Not Circled 1148 89.5 1148 89.5 Reason Circled 134 10.5 1282 100.0 I
Q7: Climate For Using DPV/DPO Favorable i
CUMULATIVE CUNULATIVE Q7 FREQUENCY PERCENT F'tEQUENCY '
PERCENT Missing 13 1.0 13-1.0 strongly Agree 44 3.4 57 4.4 Agree 315 24.6 372 29.0
+
No Opinion 449 35.0 821 64.0 Disagree 364 28.4 1185 92.4 strongly Disagr 97 7.6 1282 100.0 4
QS Familiar With Goal of Open Door (ODP)
CUNULATIVE CUNULATIVE QS FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT
.i Missing 6
0.5 6
0.5 Very Familiar 181 14.1 187 14.6 somewhat Famil 438 34.2 625 48.8.
Limited Familiar 347 27.1 972 75.8 Not Aware' 310 24.2 1282
_.100.0 NUREG-1414 B-12 l
.-.-...==.a.z-.
NuSICar Regulatery~CsamiO0ien'D Survoy:en DiffOring? Pr8f00si6nal Vicws -(DPV) and Dpinions (DPO)-
and Open Door Policy (ODP)
Frequencies and Cross-Classifications, 09: Appropriate Use of ODP Clear-1 CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE-09
..FREQGENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY
- PERCENT-Missing..
23 1.8 23 1.8 Strongly Agree 61-4.8 84 6.6 Agree 430 33.5
-514 40.1
-No Opinion 570
-44,3 1084 84.6:
j Disagree
'159 i2./
1243 97.0 Strongly Disagr 39 3.0
- 1282, 100.0 Q10: CDP Effective Means:of Expression-CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE Q10 FREQUENCY =
PERCENT. = FREQUENCY PERCENT
.i
........c...__....................................__.....
Missing 16 1.2-16 1.2 i
t' Yes 470 36.7
-486 37.9
-1 No 196 15.3 682-
- 53. 2 -
Don't Know 600 46.8 1282 100.0 l
- l Q11: Clisate for Using ODP Favorable.
1 CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE Q11 FREQUENCY PERCENT FREQUENCY PERCENT Missing 22 1.7
'22:
- 1. '7 l
Strongly Agree 73 5.7
-95 7.4 i
Agree 351 27.4 446 34.8 No opinion 564 44.0 1010 78.8 Disagree 214 16.7 1224 95.5 Strongly Disagr 58 4.5 1282 100.0 Respondent Added Additional Comments-CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE.
COMMENT FREQUENCY PERCENT:
FREQUENCL PERCENT No Comments 1188
-92.7 1188 192.7 More Comments 94 7.3 1282-100.0 NU.iEG-1414 B.
-c t
l I
i
h
!~
(
?
t-I.
i b
l l'.
+
l 1
APPENDIX 2.
l
'i L
i t
I
?
I t
i t
i i
t' l-1 !.
t i
l~
NUREG-1414 B-14 t
l l
l l
I*
- + -
1
-z NuclOar Ragulatsry Commissien'0 Survoy-en
_Difforing Prefocsicnal VIGwD,(DFV) and'OpinienO (DPO) and open Door Policy (CDP)-
Frequencies and Cross-Classifications TABLE OF Q6 BY Q6AA Q6(Q6: DPV/DP0 Effective Means Expression)
Q6AA(Q6a: DPV/DP0 Process too Cabrsa/Long)
Circleci [lsarcled FREQUENCY.-
Not Reas%r
. TOTAL-
...........+........+........+
Missing l
16 l.
1 l_
' 17 -
.__......__+........+......._+
YesL l
500 l' 4l 504 No l
228 l 65-l 293
__........_+.......+........+
Don't Know l_
462.l 6 l 468
...........+-___....+........+
TOTAL-1206 76 1282.
i
-i l
TABLE OF-Q6 BY'Q6AB Q6(Q6: DPV/DPO Effective Means. Expression)
Q6AB(Q6b:' DPV/DPO Viewed Negatively by Peers) q FREQUENCY Not-Reason' circled circled TOTAL
...........+...__.._+......._+
t Missing l'
14-l 3 l 17-
.........._+......._+..__...+
Yes l
-500 l 4 l 504 l
.............__...._+__......+
No l
202 l 91_l 293-
.........._+........+_.......+
Don't Know l 461 l 7l 468-
...........+........+... __..+'
TOTAL 1177 105 1282
'1 i
j NUREG-1414' B-15 i
t
. -3 s
.e e
Nuclocr Regulatsry Conniccien'o'Surv,y en Differing Prctoccien31.Vicw3.-(DFV) cnd Opinicn3 (DPO)
~
~ and Open Door Policy-(CDP).
}-
Frequencies and Cross-Classifications e
TABLE OF Q6 BY-06AC J
l 06(Q6:-DPV/DP0 Etfactive Means Expression)='
L
' Q6AC(Q6c:. OPV/DPO Concerned About Reprisal)-
1 FREQUENCY Not Reason Circleds Circled TOTAL-
'5
..... __...+.._____.+........_+
Missing l
10-lf 7
l.-
17-
...........+........+........+
~
l Yes=
l 499-l.
SL l 504-
]
.........__+........+........+
i No
-l 78 l
'2151l.
293
(
.____....__.+.......+..__....+
Don't Know l 447 l 21 l.
468 j
...........+ __.....+........+;
a TOTAL 1034 248 1282
'i TABLE-OF Q6'BY Q6AD l
.Q6(Q6: DPV/DP0 Effective' Means Expression).
l l
Q6AD(Q6d: Reviewer' Predisposed outcome DPV).
l t
FREQUENCY Not Reason Circled-Circled' TOTAL i
....__.___.+__...___+........+
Missing l
13 :l' 4 l.
- 17. -
....__.__..+........+... __. 9l q
l 500 l 4
504
- Yes
.............. _ _... _ +........ ' +
No l
174 l 119 l 293 1,
Don't Know l
_461 l 7l 468 1
._____..__.+...__..+_...... +
TOTAL 1148 134 1282 L
1a i
e i
n NUREG-1414 B-16 d
1
~.
m-p 5 k h,
4 1
' i i
i i
4 f
i I
i 1
2 h
APPENDIX :3.
l i
n I
t' i
.f
- t l
NUREG-1414 B-17 t
t t
[
a or y e.
,w.s,
\\
\\^o
- e 1
L
)
L Nuclocr Regulatory CImmiocien'0 surysy en-Differing _ Professional Views (DPV) ' and' 0 pinions - (DPC) and Open Door Policy (CDP)_
Frequencies and cross-Classifications TABLE OF Q1 BY Q3-Q1',Q1: Classification)
Q3(Q3: Familiar With Goals of DPV/DPO).
FREQUENCY PERCENT R0W PCT COL PCT Missing Very somewhat Limi dlNot l
Familiar Familiar Famil.s * * " ' ~
TOTAL
............. _ _ _ + _ _..... +........ + _....... +. _ _ _.... +....... + _
Missing-4.
0:
1-0 0
-5 0.31 0.00-0.08 0.00 0.00 0.39 j
80.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.20
'0.00 0.00
..... _ _.. _ _ _.... + _....... +........ + _.... _ _. +........ +...... _ _ +
Non-Supervisory 4
81 343 421 53 902 0.31-6.32 26.76-32.84 4.13
'0.36 7
0.44 8.98
'38.03 46.67 5.88 40.00 39.90 68.88 81.75 94.64
..__............+_......_+.......+........+........+._____..+
Section Chief 0
36 84 63 2
185 0.00 2.81 6.55 4.91 0.16 14.43 0.00 19.46 45.41 34.05
.1.08 O.00 17.73 16.87 12.23 3.57
........ _.... +. _ _ _... +... _ _.. +........ + _ _... _ _ +....... +
Branch Chief 1
26 40 19 1
87 0.08 2.03 3.12 1.48 0.08 16.79 1.15 29.89 45.98 21.84 1.15 10.00 12.81 8.03 3.69 1.79-
_.............__+....___+......__'+........+... ___.+___..___+
Assistant Drctr-1-
60 30 12 0'
103 0.08 4.68 2.34 0.94 0.00 IB.03 O.97 58.25 29.13 11.65 0.00 10.00 29.56 6.02
~2.33 0.00
........_____._+...___ +.___....+_.......+._____.+....___+
TOTAL 10 203-498 515 56' 1282 0.73 15.83 38.85 40.17' 4.37 100.00 i
r I
L I
. B-18 1
I l
"~'
.,d NuclCar.Rogulatery,Camaisoien'0 Survoy en Difforing Prof 00018nal. ViOwe (DPV). and Opinions - (DPO)
- {
and-Open Door Policy..(CDP).
Frequencies and Cross-Classifications l
TABLE OF.Q1 BY Q4
-Q1(Q1: Classification)
Q4(Q4 Understand Submitting a DPV/DPO)
FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT l Missing Strongly Agree No.
Disagree Strongly COL. PCT Agree.
Opinion Disagree TOTAL L
.....__.........+........+.___....+........+........+--.....+--......+
Missing 3
l' 1
0 0
0 5
0.23 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00
-0.00 0.39.
60.00 20.00 20.00-
-0.00 0.00 0.00-30.00 1.10
- 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 3
............__..+........+ __.....+..__....+-... __+.......+.---....+
Non-Supervisory 6
40 402' 408 38 8.
902 j
0.47 3.12 31.36 31.83 2.96
-0.42~
70.36 i
0.67 4.43 44.57 o45.23 4.21 0.89 60.00 43.96 63.91 82.26 82.61 80.00
................+..___..+........+....__..+....... +.......+........+
Section Chief 1
14 109-57 3
1 185 O.08 1.09 8.50 4.45 0.23 0.08 14.43 0.54 7.57 58.92 30.81 1.62 0.54 10.00 15.38 17.33 11.49 6.52 10.00
...........__...+- ______+........+.......+.....--+...--__.+l.......+
Branch Chief 0-11 55 18 3
0 t'
O.00-0.86 4.29 1.40 0.23 0.00 6.19 0.00 12.64 63.22 20.69 3.45 0.00 0.00 12.09.
8.74 3.63 6.52 0.00
..___.______....+........+..______+........+_.......+........+_.......+
Assistant Drctr 0
25 62 13 2
1.
103 0.00 1.95 4.84 1.01'
.0.16' 0.08 8.03 0.00 24.27 60.19
- 12.62 1.94 0.97 0.00 27.47 9.86 2.62-4.35 10.00
-...--......___.+.......+ ____...+...____.+........+...____.+..... __+
TOTAL 10 91 629
'496 46 10 1282-0.78 7.10 49.06 38.69 3.59 0.78 100.00 NUREG-1414 B-19
a Nuc10arLRagulotary C8mmio0ien's Survoy sn Difforing Prsfossional Views (D7V) and Opinions (DPO) and OpenLDoor-Policy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross-classifications i
TABLE OF Q1 BY Q5
{
Q1(Q18 Classification)
Q5(QS Difference Between' Submit of DPV&DPO) i FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT.
M1Asing-Very SoSeWhat LiBited Not Familiar Familiar Familiar Aware TOTAL
{
................ +.. _ _.... +........ +........ +........ +....... +
Missing 3
1 0
0 1-5 0.23 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.39 l
'60.00 ~
20.00 0.00
-0.00 20.00 l
37.50.
1.11 0;00 0.00-0.22 i
__......._____ _+........+_...... +_.......+........+-...... +-
l Non-supervisory 4
35 148 347 368 902 1
0.31 2.73 11.54 27.07 28.71
'70.36 0.44 3.88 16.41 38.47
'40.80 i
50.00 38.89 61.41 70.96 81.06
. _ _ _... _ _...... +........ + _....... +....... +........ +........ +
Section Chief-0 13 42 75 55 185 0.00 1.01 3.28 5.85 4.29 14.43 0.00 7.03 22.70 40.54
-29.73 0.00 14.44 17.43 15.34 12.11
_ _ _..... _ _.... +........ +.. _ _.. _ + _ _ _.... +....... +.... _ _ _. +
Branch Chief 0
10 19
'38 20 87 0.00 0.78 1.48 2.96 1.56 6.79 0.00-11.49 21.84 43.68 22.99 0.00 11.11 7.88 7.77 4.41
_ _ _ _ _... _ _ _ _ _. +........ + _ _ _..... +........ + _....... +. _ _..... +
Assistant Drctr 1
31 32
.29-10 103 10.08 2.42 2.50 2.26 0.78 8.03 0.97 30.10 31.07 28,16 9.71 12.50 34.44 13.28 5.93 2.20
........ _ _...... +........ + _....... +...... _ _ +... _ _... +........ +
TOTAL 8
90
'241-489 454 1282-0.62 7.02 18.80 38.14 35.41 100.00 i
1 NUREG-1414 B-20
~~
Nucloar Rogulatery Csmaisoien'0 survoy en Differing Professional Views (DPV) and opinions (DPC) and Open Door Policy (ODP).
Frequencies and Cross-classifications TABLE OF-Q1 BY Q6 Q1(Q1:' Classification)
Q6(QCt DPV/DP0 Effective Means Expression)
FREQUENCY PERCENT R0W PCT COL PCT Missing Yes No Don't Know.
TOTAL
........ _ _ _.... +........ +....... _ +....... + _....... +
Missing 3
1 1
0 5
0.23 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.39 60.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 17.65 0.20 0.34 0.00
...... _ _...... _ _ +........ +........ + - -...... +........ +
Non-Supervisory 10 285 228 379 902 0.78_
22.23 17.78 29.56 70.36.
1.11 3.1.60-25.28 42.02 58.82 56.55 77.82
'80.98
................+.......+........+.......+...____.+
Section Chief 1
88 42 54 185 0.08-6.86 3.28-4.21 14.43 0.54 47.57 22.70 29.19 5.88 17.46 14.33.
11.54
.....__.... ____+____....+..__....+....___.+........+
Branch Chief 1
55 11 20 87-0.08 4.29 0.86 L1.56.
6.79 1.15 63.22 12.64 22.99 5.88-10.91 3.75 4.27
............ ___+_.......+........+__...__.+........+
Assistant Drctr 2
75
.11 15 103 0.16 5.85 0.86 1.17 8.03 1.94 72.82 10.68 14.56 11.76 14.88 3.75 3.21
... _ _.......... + - _ _ _ _ _ _ +........ +........ +....... +
TOTAL 17 504 293 468 1282 1.33-39.31 22.85 36.51 100.00 NUREG-1414 B-21 i
t Nuclocr R:gulatsry'Ccamisaien'o?Survcy en Differing Profocaicnal Views (DPV)_-- and Opinions ~ (DPC) 1 and Open Door ~ Policy (ODP)-
Frequencies and Cross-Classifications l
TABLE OF.Q1'BY-Q6AA F
Q1(Q1: J Classification)-
Q6AA(Q6at DPV/DP0 Process too Cabrsa/Long)-
{
FREQUENCY PERCENT l
ROW PCT
. COL PCT Not Reason circled Circled TOTAL
................ +........ + _....... +
Missing 4
. 0.08 0.39 1
5 0.31 80.00 20.00 0.33 11.32
..........__....+........+__.....+
Non-Supervisory-846 56 902 65.99 4.37 70.36 93.79 6.21
(
70.15 73.68
................ +........ +........ +
Section Chief 372 13 185 i
. 13.42 1.01 14.43 92.97 7.03 14.26 17.11
............... +....... +........ +
Branch Chief 84 3
87.
6.55 0.23 6.79
'96.55 3.45 f
6.97 3.95
............_..+.......+........+
Ani:is, tant Drctr 100 l l3 103-7.80 J 0.23 8.03 97.09 2;91 8.29-3.95
.............__.+........+_..... +
i TOTAL 1206 76 1282 94.07.-
5.93-100.00 -
1 i
l
- i s
l t
NUREG-1414 B-22 9
1 m*-
.,-,,,.y y.
,-w,,
,y,.
.,.w w e.- 4 w.
e.,,-.,
i
]!
Nucloor'Rogulatory comaiosien'0-Surv0y'en Diff0 ring Prof 00eionci Vicws (DPV)'and Opinions (DPO) and open' Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies-and Cross-Classifications.
TABLE OF-Q1~BY Q6AB Q1(Q1 Classification)
Q66 (Q6bt DPV/DPO Viewed Negatively by Peers)-
FREQUENCY PERCENT 1
ROW PCT l
COL PCT Not Reason-Circled CircleA TOTAL
................+.......-+......m.. +
Nissing 4
1 5
0.31 0.08 0.39 80.00 20.00 0.34-0.95.
...............+........+---.....+
Non-Supervisory 822 80 902 64.12
.6.24 70.36 91.13 8.87 69.84 76.19
.........__...+.......+....... +-
Section Chief 171 14 185 13.34 1.09 14.'43 92.43 7.57 14.53 13.33-
................+-.......+........+
Branch Chief 81 6
,87 6.32 0.47 6.79-93.10 6.90 6.88 5.71-
................+........+........+
Assistant Drctr 99 4
103 7.72 0.31 8.03 96.12 3.88 8.41 3.81
........ ___....+..__....+........+
TOTAL 1177 105 1282 91.81 8.19 100.00 NUREG-1414 B-23 n--n
,,,e iiiiis i
-mum-um
Nuclo0r R;gulcttry Cramiccien'a'Surv3y en Differing Prof 000icn:1Vicw3; (DPV) and opiniens ' (DPO)-
and Open Door. Policy (ODP).
Frequencies and Cross-Classifications.
TABLE OF.~.Q1 BY 06AC-Q1(Q1 Classification) 06AC(Q6c DFV/DP0 Concerned About Reprisal FREQUENCY
-PERCENT.
Circled Circled'
-TOTAL
..... _____.... +.......+_. ___.+
Missing 4
1 5
.0.31 10.08' O.39
(
l-
,80.00 20.00-0.39-0.40
__.___........__+__...__.+.......+
Non-supervisory
. 54.91.
15.44 70.36 704 198 902-78.05
-21.P5 60.09' 79.84 1
.........._____.+.......+_.......+
section Chief 151-.34-185 i
11'.78 2.65 14.43 81.62-18.38
'14.60 13.71 i
__...___________+...___..+___.....+
Branch Chief
'80 7
87 6.24 0.55-6~.79
.91.95
-8.05-7.74 2.82
..... ___..____.+......__+___...__+
Assistant Drctr 95
- S
~103 7.41 0.62 8 03 j
92.23.
7.77 9.19 3.23
.....__.____.___+....____+.......+
TOTAL 1034 248 1282 80.66 19.34 100.00 NUREG 1414 B-24 i+-
as r,..
+-
=
v
+
r.-,.
.m...
ei-..
1 i
NuclOar Regulstery CommiSOi8n'0 Surv0y On DiffOring Pref 000ional V10wo;(DPV) and opinieno (DPC) and open Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies.and Cross-Classifications TABLE OF Q1 BY.Q6AD Q1(Q12. Classification)
Q6AD(Q6dt Reviewer Predisposed outcome DPV)
FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Not Reason-Circled Circled TOTAL l
................+........+........+
l
, Missing
_4 1
5 0.31 0.08 0.39 80.00 20.00 0.35 0.75 I
................ +........ +....... +
Non-Supervisory 802-100-902 i
62.56 7.80 70.36 88.91 11.09 69.86 74.63
................ +........ +........ +
Section Chief 159 26 185 12.40 2.03-14.43 l
85.95 14.05 13.85 19.40
................+-.......+....... +
Branch Chief 83 4
87 6.47 0.31 6.79 95.40 4.60 7.23 2.99
................+........+........+
e Assistant Drctr 100 3-103 7.80 0.23 8.03 97.09 2.91 l
8.71 2.24
................+........+........+
TOTAL 1148 134 1282 89.55 10.45 100.00 e
NUREG-1414 B-25 O
e
Nucloor R:gulotcry CImmisolon'0 Survdy' en DiffCring Prcf000ien31 ViCw] (DPV) cnd OpinionD-(DPO) and open DooriPolicy.(ODP)
. Frequencies and Cross-Classifications R
- TABLE OF Q1 BY Q7' Q1(Q1: Classification)
Q7(Q7 Climate For Using DFV/DP0 Favorable)
FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Missing Strongly Agree No Disageae Strongly Agree opinion Disagree TOTAL
................+........+........+........+........+........+........v MiGaing 3
0 1
0 1
0 5.
0.23 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08-0.00 0.39 60.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 23.08 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.27 0.00
................ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +.
Non-supervisory 6
15
'185
'365 258.73-902 I
0.47-1.17 14.43-28.47.
20.12.
5.69 70.36-J 0.67 1.66 20.51 40.47 28.60 8.09 46.15 34.09 58.73 81.29 70.88 75.26'
................ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
l Scction Chief 2
6 49 54 58 16 185' 0.16 0.47 3.82 4.21 4.52 1.25 14.43 i
1.08 3.24 26 49 29.19
.31.35 8.65 l
15.38 13.64 15.56 12.03 15.93' 16.49 i
................ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
{
Brcnch Chief 1
8 31 16 26 5
87 i
i 0.08 0.62 2 42 JL. 5 12.03 0.39 6.79 2
1.15 9.20 35.63 18.39 29.89 5.75 l
7.69 18.18 9.84 3.56-7.14 i
p................+........+........+.......+...'.....+.......+...5.15... 4 i -Accistant Drctr 1
15 49 14 21 3.
103 0.08 1.17.
3.82 1.09 1.64 0.23 8.03 l
0.97 14.56 47.57' 13.59' 20.39 2.91 i
7.69 34.09 15.56 3.12 5.77 3.09
................+.......+........+........+.......+.......+.........
j TOTAL 13 44 315-449 364 97 1282 1.01 3.43
-24.57 35'02 28.39 7.57 100.00 i
9 NUREG-1414 B-26
.-=n-+--
-..--.--+-e--
.s--.
m
---.-m--
--,-.-ww==--m
,s-
1 9
'4 I
~
4 MuS100r. Regulatory CramiOOicn'0 Survoy_on a
DiffOring Pr@focsional ViOwa'(DPV) and Opiniens'(DPO) and~Open Door Policy (CDP)
- Frequencies and Cross-Classifications TABLE OF.Q1 BY 08 l
Q1(Q18 Classification).
Q8(QB Familiar With Goal of.open Door (CDP))
FREQUE3tCY PERT:E3IT ROW PCT COL PCT Missing Very Somewhat Limited Not j
Familiar Familiar Familiar Aware TOTAL-i
- -.............. +........ +....... + - -..... - + - - - -.... +........ +
Missing.
<3' 0-2
.0 0
. 5 O.23 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 o0.39 60.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 50.00,
0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00
................ +.... _ _ _ _ + - -...... + -....... +........ + - - - - -.. - +
Non-Supervisory 3
"A f 289 278' 258 902-O.23 5.77 22.54 21.68 20.12 70.36 0.33
' 1320' 32.04 30.82 28.60 50.00-46,8%
' 45.98 80.12 83.23
................+-.......+-... 4..+....--..+...
--..+.-----..+
Section Chief 0
J-75~
44 36 185 m
0.00 2.34 5.85 3.43-2.81 14.43 0.00 16.22 40.54 23.78 19.46 0.00 16.57 17.12 12.68-11.61-
................+------..+.......-+-....--.+--......+..___.--+
Branch Chief 0
23 34 16 14 87 0.00 1.79 2.65 1.25 1.09 6.79 0.00 26.44 39.08 18.39 16.09 0.00 12.71 7.76 4.61 4.52
--...........--.+...--..+......--+-----...+--.....+- ----..+
Assistant Drctr 0
54 38 9-2 103
-l 0.00 4.21 2.96 0.70 0.16 8.03 0.00 52.43 36.89 8.74 l'.94 0.00 29.83 S.68 2.59 0.65 l
- - - - -........... +..... - - - + - - - - -... +. - - -.... +........ + -....... +
TOTAL 6
181 438 347 310 1282-0.47 14.12 34.17 27.07 24.18 100.00 NUREG-1414 B-27 u
Nuclocr Regulotsry C8asiOoisn's survoy en Differing Professional Viewsa (DPV) and opinions (DPC) l and'Open Door Policy (CDP) i Frequencies and Cross-Classifications q
TABLE OF Q1-BY Q9 Q1(Q1: Classification) 09(Q9: Appropriate Use of-ODP Clear).
i I
FREQUENCY.
, PERCENT ROW PCT.-
Missing Strongly Agree l No-Disagree Strongly l
COL PCT-1 Agree opinion-Disagree TOTAL j
.. _ _............ +... _ _ _. +. _ _..... +........ +........ +... _ _... +....... +
MiOsing 3
0 1
1
. 0 0:
5 0.23 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00
-0.00 0.39 60.00 0.00 20.00 20.00-0.00 0.00-13.04 0.00 0.23-0.18 0.00 0.00-
.....__..........+..______+._______+_.......+........+.......+..d.....+
Nan-Supervisory 19 24 259 454 113 33 902 1.48 1.87-20.20 35.41-8.81-2.57 70.36 2.11 2.66 28.71 50.33-12.53 3.66 82.61 39.34-60.23 79.65 71.07 84.62 I
.... _ _.......... + _... _ _ +........ +........ + -.. _ _... +........ +....... - +
SCction Chief 0
7 83 72 20 3
185 0.00 0.55 6.47-5.62 1.56 0.23.
14.43 a
0.00 3.78 44.86 38.92 10.81 1.62 0.00 11.48 19.30 12.63 112.58-7.69
...... _ _........ +....... _ +........ +....... +....... +...... +....... +
Branch Chief 1
8 36 24
,17 1
87 0.08 0.62 2.81 1.87 1.33 0.08 6.79 1.15 9.20 41.38 27.59 19.54 1.15 4.35 13.11 8.37 4.21~
10.69 2.56
_............... +... _ _ _. +........ +. _ _..... +...... _ _ +........ +........ +
A00istant Drctr 0
22 51 19 9
2 103 0.00 1.72 3.98 1.48 0.70 0.16
~8.03 0.00 21.36 49.51 18.45 8.74 1.94 l
0.00 36.07 11.86 3.33 5.66 5.13
.............. _ _ +. _ _..... +. _ _ _... +...... +........ + _ _..... +..... _ _ _ +
TOTAL 23 61 430 570 159 39 1282 1.79 4.76 33.54 44.46 12.40 3.04 100.00 2
i NUREG-1414 B-28
E Nusloor Regulatsry C3anisaisn's Survoy en DiffOring Pr8f00016nal ViGws (DPV) and Opinions (DPO) and open Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross-Classifications TABLE OF 31 BY Q10 Q1(Q1: Classification)
Q10(Q10: ODP Effective Means of Expression)
FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Missing Yes No Don't Know TOTAL
................ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Missing 3
1 l'
0 5
0.23 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.39 60.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 18.75 0.21 0.51 0.00
................ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Non-Supervisory 11 264 153 474 902 0.86 20.59 11.93 36.97 70.36 1.22 29.27 16.96-52.55 68.75 56.17 78.06 79.00
................+........+......-~s........+........+
Section Chief 1
'85 22 77 185 0.08 6.63 1.72 6.01 14.43 0.54' 45.95 11.89 41.62 6.25 18.09 11.22 12.83
................+........+........+.......+.......+
Branch Chief 1:
44 11 31 87 0.08 3.43 0.86 2.42 6.'79 1.15 50.57 12.64 35.63 6.25 9.36 5.61 5.17
................ +........ +........ +........ +....... +
Assistant Drctr 0
76 9
18 103 0.00 5.93 0.70.
1.40 8.03 0.00 73.79-8.74-17.48 0.00 16.17 4.59 3.00
................ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
TOTAL
'16 470 196 600 1282 1.25 36.66 15.29 46.80 100.00 NUREG-1414 B-29 l
I i
I
.Y J
J Nucloor R:gulatery Ctaniccien'o surv3y en Differing Professional Views (DPV) and Opinions- (DPO) and open-Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross-classifications 1
TABLE OF Q1 BY Q11-Q1(Q1: Classification)
Q11(Q11: Climate-for Us'ng ODP Favorable) 1 FREQUENCY i
PERCENT ROW PCT 1
COL PCT Missing Strongly Agree No Disagree Strongly Agree opinior.
Disagree TOTAL
.............__.+.......+.......+.......+....__m.+........+....____+
'Miccing' 3
0 1
. C l'
0 5
I O.23
-0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.39 60.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 13.64 0.00 l 0.28 0.00 0.47 0.00
......___......+.__.__.+..__....+e...___+.......+_.......+........+
3 Non-Supervisory 15 26-210 445 160
. 46 902 1.17 2.03 16.38 34.71 12.48 3.59 70.36 1.66 2.88.
23.28-49.33~
17.74 5.10 68.18 35.62 59.43 78.90 74.77 79.31
...... __.......+ ___.___+.......+........+..___...+....__..+...____+
.S ction Chief 1
13 64 70 31 6
185 0.08 1.01-4.99 5.46 2.42 0.47 14.43 4
0.54 7.03 34.59.
37.84 16.76 3.24 4.55 17.81 18.23 12'.41 14.49 10.34.
s
........... _ _. _ _ +........ +.... _ _ _ _ +... _ _ _.. +. _ _ _ _ _. +........ +. _ _ _. _ _. +
Bronch Chief 3
9 31 29 12 3
87-0.23 0.70 2.42 2.26 0.94 0.23-6.79' 3.45 10.34 35.63 33.33 13.79-3.45-13.64 12.33' 8.83 5.14-5.61 5.17
.... _ _ _......... +. _ _ _ _ _.. +....... +........ + _....... + _...... +...... +
Accistant Drctr 0-25-45 20
'10 3
103 O.00 1.95 3.51 1.56 0.78 0.23-8.03 0.00 24.27 3.69 19.42 9.71 2.91 4
0.00 34.25 12.82 3.55 4.67 5.17
............... +. _ _ _ _..., _ _.... _ _ +.... _ _.. +...... _ _ +. _ _.... +. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ + -
TOTAL 22 73 351 564' 214 58 1282 1.72 5.69 27.38-43.99-16.69-4.52 100.00 1
t NUREG-1414 B-30 1
,.m,.
r.--ee.**
--%.+--,.
ew=,,+-,.~,-.,e.wc--
<*-,n-4
.,+sr.
,y--
- w r em wy+.
e---e, y
ygp-)m
a
-a n
.a s.
s,w2.
+
enwn.,
...p.s.
a.
..,m
... - +
a
,..a.a a
-n- -, - -, - - - - --
.I
.h.
+
h
- t I
'3 4
I e
w k
I i
b APPENDIX 4.
1 i
i
\\
i 1
. t i
f I
l l-l-
h i
1 i
1.
e l
NUREG-1414 B-31 i
.i i 6
a
.( l 1
Nuclear Regulatory commission's Survey on
'I
. Differing Professionst Views'(OPV) and opinions (OPO)
-and Open Door Policy (00P)
Frequencies and Cross. Classifications a
TAF',E OF 02 SY 01 02(02: Place of Work).
01 5: Classificction)
FREGUENCY-PERCENT-i ROW PCT COL ^ PCT-Missing Non--
- Section, Branch Asst
(
1
, Sprvsry Chief Chief Orctr-10TAL-
'................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +.
n Missing 4
5 1-0 1'
11-4 O.31 0.39 0.08.
0.00 0.08 0.86 36.36 45.45' 9.09-0.00'
-9.09
-i 80.00 0.55 0.54 0.00 0.97 1
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Comunissioner off 0
.75'
-8 3
20-106' O 00 5.85-0.62 0.231 1.56 8.27-i 0.00 70.75
-7.55 2.83:
18.87
~0.00 8.31 4.32 3.45
- 19.42 l-
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +.
E00 office 0
136 24 19 17 1961 t
0.00 10.61 1.87 1.48 1.33 15'.29 O.00 69.39-12.24 9.69 8.67 0.00 15.08 12.97 21.84:
16.50' s
l
.................+........+........+........+........'+........s AE00 0-39 12 6
'3 602 0.00 3.04 0.94 ;
0.47 -'
~ 0.23 4.68 q
0.00-65.00 20.00 10.00 5.00, 0.00 4.32-6.49
-6.90 2.91
~l
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +.
NRR 1
243' 33 =
25 15
'317 0.08-18.95-2.57
- 1.95
.1.17
-24.73 0.32 76.66 10.41 7.89:
'4.73 20.00 26.94-17.84-28.74
-14.56
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
NMSS 0
89-14-
.8'
.7 118-0.00 6.94L 1.09.
0.62-0.55-9.20 -
0.00 75.42 11.86 6.78 5.93 L
0.00 9.87 7.57 9.20 6.80 TOTAL 5
902 185 87 103L 1282 0.39 70.36 14.43 6.79 8.03 100.00i (CONTINUED) 4 NUREG-1414 B.32 l
l 1
i i
e c.
1 Nuclear 1 Regulatory Commission's Survey onl Offforing Professional-Views _(DPV):and Opinions (DPC) and Open Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross Classifications-TABLE OF Q2 BY Q1 i
02(Q2: Place of Work)'
01(018-Classification)
]
+
FREQUENCY PERCENT f
' ROW PCT
+
Section Branch Asst Sprvsry-Chief Chief.
Drctr
- TOTAL-
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ + -
REs
.0 67 15 6
7:
95 0.00 5.23' 1.17 0.47 0.55-
- 7.41 0.001 70.53 115.79 6.32 7.37-0.00 7.43-8.11 6.90
- 6.80 --
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ + '
i Region !
0 55-18 9
- 8 4
0.00 4.29 1.40-0.70
-.0.62 7.02 l
0.00
-61.11
'20.00 10.00 8.89-0.00 6.10 9.73 10.34' -
7.77
.................+........+.......4........+........+........+
i Region't!
0 52 16
-5 7
80
(
0.00 4.06 1.25 0.39-0.55-6.24 0.00 65.00 20.00 6.25L
-8.75 4
0.00-5.76-
'8.65 5.75 6'.80
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ + '
Region !!!
0 59 20-41 8
91 0.00-4.60' 1.56-L0.31-0.62 7.10 0.00 64.84 21.98 4'40 8.79-0.00 6.54 10.81-4.60 7.77
...................................+.................+........,
o Region IV 0
44 15
-0 6'
- 65 0.00 3.43-1.17. _
0.00 0.47:
5.07 0.00 67.69'
'23.08 0.00 9.23 0.00:
4.88~
8.11 0.00
-5.83 i
.................+........+........+........+........+........,
Region V 0
38:
9 2
4-53 i
0.00 2.96 0.70 0.16' O.31 4.13-t 0.00 71.70 16.98 3.77
,7.55-0.00
'4.21 4.86~
2.30 3.88
.................+........+........+........+........+........+
. TOTAL 5
-902 185 87 103 1282 0.39 70.36 14.43 6.79.
8.03 100.00 9
NUREG-1414 B-33 l
1
b.
hoclear Regulatory Ccamission'sl Survey on
' Difforins Professional-Views (DPV) and opinions (DPC):
and Open Door _ Policy (00P)
Frequencies and Cross Classifications-TABLE OF 02 8Yie3.
L02(02: Place of Work).
43(03: Familiar With Goals of Ori/0PO)
FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT-COL' PCT Missing very Scaewhat Limited; Not Familiar Familiar Familiar Aware TOTALi
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Missing--
4 1
1-4 1
11-0.31 0.08 0.08 0.31; 0.08' O.86' 36.36 9.09 9.09 36.36 9.09-40.00 0.49 0.20-0.78 1J9 q
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +.
Ceamtsaioner Off 1
- 16 45 40 3
106 0.08 1.25' 3.51 3.12'
' 0.31 -
8.27 l
0.94-
-15.09 142.45 37.74 3.77 10.00 7.88.
9.04 7.77 7.14-
.................+................+.................+........+-
EDO Office-12 28:
61 86-19-196 0.16-2.18,
'4.76 6.71 1.48 15.29
-1.02-14.29 31.12 43.88-9.69:
20.00-
-13.79 12.25 16.70 33.93 i
.................+........+........+........+........+........+
AE00 0
9 18'
-30
'3 60 4
0.00 0.70.
. 1.40 '
2.34-
-0.23:
4.68-i 0.00
-15.00 30.00'
. 50.00
'5.00' 0.00 4.43 3.61 5.83 5.361 1
..........................+........+........+........+........+
j NRR 1-48 142 117 9
117 1
0.08 3.74' 11.08 9.13
-0.70_
24.73_
0.32 15.14 44.79 36.91-
-2.84 10.00:
23.65 28.51 22.72 16.07-
..........................+........+........+........+.........
NMss 0'
18 36
'56
'8 118' 0.0L 1.40 2.81.
4'.37 0.62:
9.20-i 0.00 15.25.-
- 30.51 47.46 6.78 0.00
'8.87.
7.23 10.87-14.29
............................................+........+........,
i TOTAL 10 203 498 515 ~
56 1282 0.78 15.83
.38.85 40.17 4.37-100.00 i
(CONTINUED) 6 NUREG-1414 B-34 b
[..
p NucLcar Regulattry Commission's survey on p
! Differing. Professions l Views (DPV) and Opinions (DPO)1 1
- and Open Door Policy (CDP):
,1 Frequencies and Cross ClassifIceti.ons-TA8LE OF 02 BY 03 02(02: PL' ace of Work) 03(03: Familiar.With Goals. of: DPV/0PO)
FREeUENCY:
PERCENT 1
ROW PCT COL PCT Missing Very Somewhat Limited Not Familiar Familiar Familiar Ausre.
TOTAL
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ + ~
RES-0
.11'-
47.
'34 3
95 -
0.00 0.86 3.67 2.65 0.23 7.41 l
0.00 11.58 49.47.
L35.79 3.16 0.00 5.42 9.44 6.60 5.36 l
l
................. +........ +........ +........ +........,........ +.
Region 1
- 0.
- 20 31 35
-4 90 0.00 1.56 2.42~
- 2.73 0.31' 7.02 0.00' 22.22'
'34.44 38.89L 4.44 -'
0.00 9.85 6.22 6.80 7.14
.................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Region 11 0
15 29 34 2.
80 0.00 1.17
-2.26 2.65 0.16 6.24 0.00 18.75 36.25 42.50!
2.50 0.00 7.39 5.82' 6.60 3.57 L
.................+........+........+................+........,
L Region !!!
- 2 17-135 364
'1 91-t 1
0.16 1.33-2.73 2.81' O.08 7.10 2.20 18.68 38.464 39;56
- 1.10 l-20.00 8.37 7.03 L6.99; 1.79
.................+........+........+........+........+........+.
~
- 65 Region IV 0
12' 35<
17 1
0.00 0.94 2.73 1.33' O.08 5.07.
0.00 18.46 53.85-
- 26.15-1.54 1
0.00 5.91 7.03'
.3.30-1.79.
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Region V 0.
8 18 26
-1 53 0.00 0.62 1.40 2.03 0.08 4.13 0.00.
15.09.
.33.96 49.06 1.89 1
0.00
- 3. 94..
3.61-5.05 1,79
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
TOTAL 10 203 498 515 56 1282 0.78 15.83 38.85 40.17 4.37 100.00 t
l v
i NUREG-1414 B-35 i
t a
i 4
+
t=-
(.--
< - +
m
a
.c I
. Nuclear Regulatory Comals'sion's Survey on Of fforing Professional views -(OPV):and opintons (DPC)'
and Open Door. Pol {cy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross Classifications-TABLE OF 02 SY e4 02(02: Place of Work) 04(04: Understand Sutaitting a~0PV/0PO)
FREQUENCY PERCENT R0W PCT COL PCT Missing Strongly Agree No; Disagree [Strongly Agree opinion TOTAL j
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +} D i sag r ee
........+
Missing L3
_2 3
2 1
0 11 j
0.23 0.16 0.23 0.16 0.08 0.00-0.86 27.27.
18.182 27.27 18.18-9.09 0.00 30.00-2.20 0.48 0.40 2.17 0.00
.................+........+........+........+.......4........+........+
Commissioner off 1,
3-52 43' 5
2 106 i
0.08 0.23-4.06 3.35-0.39-0.16 8.27 0.94 2.83~
49.06 40.57 4.72 1.89 10.00
-3,30 8.27 8.67 10.87
.20.00
.................+........+........+........+........+........+........+
E00 office' 0
11 74 101 7-3-
1%
.0.00 0.86 5.77 7.88:
0.55
- 0.23 15.29 0.00 5.61=
37.76 51.53.
-3.57 1.53 0.00 12.09 11.76
.20.36 15.22
.30.00
.................+........+........+................+........+........+
i t
AE00 1
5 24
.30
.~0-0
-60 0.08 0.39-1.87
.2.34 0.00 0.00 4.68 l
1.67 8.33 40.00 50.00-
- 0.00' O.00 i
10.00 5.49 3.82:
6.05 0.00 0.00
.................+........+........+........+........;+.......+........,
. l NRR 1
25 -
168 112~
.10 1-317-0.08 1.95 13.10 8.74
'O.78 0.08 24.73 d
0.32 7.89 53.00 35.33-3.15 0.32 10.00 27.47 26.71 22.58 21.74 10.00
................. +........ +........ +........ +................ +........ +
NMSs 1
- 7 48 57 4
-1 118 0.08 0.55 3.74 4.45 0.31-0.08 9.20 0.85 5.93 40.68 48.31 3.39 0.85 10.00 7.69 7.63-11.49 8.70 10.00~
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
TOTAL 10 91 629
' 4%
46 10 1282 0.78 7.10 49.06 38.69 3.59 0.78 100.00 (CONTINUED)
NUREG-1414 B-36 1
4 b
- l Nuclcar Regulctery consission's Survey on Differing Professional Views (DPV) and opinions (DP0) and open Door Policy (CDP).
Frequencies and Cross Classifications TABLE OF 02 SY 04L 02(02: Place of Work) 04(04: Understand Sutaitting a OPV/0P0) l FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Missing Strongly Agree No.
Disagree Strongly
. Opinion Olsegree TOTAL Agres
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ + _
RES I
1 7
52 31 4
0 95 0.08 0.55 4.06 2.42 0.31 0.00 7.41 1.05 7.37 54.74 32.67
-4.21 0.00 10.00-7.69 8.27 6.25 8.70 0.00
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Region I
<1 11 46
' 26 5
' 1'
.90 0.08 0.86 3.59 2.03 0.39 0.08 7.02 1.11 12.22 51.11 28.89
'5.56 1.11 10.00~
12.09 7.31' 5.24-10.87 10.00
.................+........+........+........+........+........+........+
Region !!
0 6
46-23 5
0 80 0.00 0.47 3.59 1,79 0.39 0.00:
6.24 0.00 7.50 57.50 28.75 6.25 0.00 0.00 6.59 7.31 4.64-10.87' O.00
.................+........+........+........+................+........+
Region 111 1
7 49' 52.
2 0
91 0.08 0.55' 3.82 2.50 0.16 0.00 7.10 1.10 7.69 53.85 35.16 2.20-0.00 10.00
.7.69:
-7.79 6.45 4.35 0.00
.i
..........................+........+........+........+........+........+
q Region:!V 0
3 46 13
-1 2
65
. 0.00 0.23 3.59
- 1.01 0.08 0.16 5.07 0.00 4.62 70.77 20.00
-1.54 3.08-
- 0.00 3.30 7.31 2.62 2.17 20.00
................. +........ +........ +...... +........ +........ +........ +
Region V 0
4 21 26.
2 0
53
' 0.00 0.31'
'1.64
^2.03
.0.16 0.00 4.13 0.00 7.55 39.62 49.06 3.77-
'0.00 0.00 4.40 3.34
'5.24-4.35 0.00
.........................+........+........+........+........+.........
TOTAL 10 91 629 496 46 10-1282-0.78 7.10
'49.06' 38.69 3.59-0.78 100.00 l
l NUREG-1414 B.37 4
e -e g
e
-g,,-,y
,.,*m,.
pwg-ri---gwW,yq 9
g,,
9g yh gm9 we <wg9 g -mgyp y gr-9.-ww., g-9
.e-Nuclear Regulatory Comnission's' Survey'on=
Difforing Professional: Views (DPV) and opinions (DPC)
'^
and Open Door Policy (00P)'
Frequencies and Cross.Clsssifications-
_ TABLE OF e2_BY 05
- e2(e2: Place of We a) 05(05: Difference Between Submit of DPV&DPC)
I
-FREQUENCY
' PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Missing very-somewhat Limited Not-o Familiar Familiar Familiar Aware.
TOTAL
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Missing:
3
-2:
'2:
11
.-3' 11 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.23.
0.86 =
27.27 L18.18 L18.18 9.09 27.27' 37.50 2.22.
0.83 0.20)
.0.66-
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Commissioner off 0'
5 16-37 48
-106-0.00 0.39:
-1.25 2.89 3.74-8.27 0.00 -:
4.72
- 15.09 34.91-45.28 0.00 5.56 6.64 7.57' 10.57
................. +........ +........ +......... +........ +........ + -
EDO Office 0-11-
'36
- 70 79 -
196 0.00 0.86:
'2.81
- 5.46 6.16 15.29 0.00 5.61 18.37
- 35.71 40.31 0.00
.12.22 14.94i
'14.31
- 17.40
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ + -
AE00 0
4' 18-L20
- 28 60 0.00-0.31-0.62
- 1.56 2.18 4.68 0.00 6.67 13.33
'33.33 46.67=
0.00 4.44 3.32 4.09 6.17-c
.................+.......+........+........+................+
NRR-1 23?
166:
123 104-317 0.08.
1.79 5.15l 1 9.59 8.11 24.73 0.32 7.26 20.82.
38.80.
-32.81 12.50 25.56 27.39
- 25.15
.22.91.
.................+........+........+.................+........+
NMs8 2
8 8
45
.55-118 0.16 0.62 0.62
'3s51 4.29 9.20' 1,69 6.78-6.78
.38.14' 46.61
=25.00 8.89:
3.32-9.20 12.11.
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
TOTAL 8
90:
241 489 l454 1282 0.62 7.02 18.80 38.14 35.41 100.00 (CONT !!!"'O)
NUREG-1414 B-38 l
1
y Nucle:r Regulettry Consission'ar Survey on t
_ Differing Professional Views (DPV) and opinions (DP0)
-j and Open Door Policy (SP) 1
- Frequencies and Cross Classifications TABLE OF 02 SY 05 02(02: Place of Work) e5(05: Offference Between submit of OPV40P0)
FREQUENCY-PERCENT t
ROW PCT COL PCT Missing. Very somewhat Limited Not Familiar Familiar Familiar Aware TOTAL-t
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
RES 0
6 19 33,
~37 95 J
0.00 0.47 1.48 2.57 2.89 7.41-0.00 6.32 -
20.00-34.74 38.95 0.00
-6.67 7.88 6.75 8.15
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +,
l:
Region i 1
~7 15' 41 26 90 0.08 0.55 1.17
-3.20-2.03 7.02-1.11 7.78 16.67 45.56 28.89 l-12.50 7.78 6.22 8.38 5.73-
.................+........+........+........+........+........+
Region 11 l-0 10~
25 30 15 80 l
0.00 0.78-1.95 2.34-1.17 6.24 l
0.00 12.50 31.25
- 37.50
. 18.75 i
0.00 11.11 10.37-6.13
-3.30
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
l Region !!!-
1 8
17 40 25.
-91 0.08 0.62 1.33:
3.12 1.95; 7.10 1.10-8.79 18.68-L43.96:
27.47 1
112.50 8.89_
7.05 8.18 5.51
................. +................. +........ +........ +........ +
Region IV 0-4 20 24-17, 65 0.00 0.31 1.56:
1.87 1.33 5.07 0.00
'6.15 30.77 36.92 26.15-0.00 4.44 8.30
-4.91 3.74
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
L Region V 0
2 9-25:
17 53 0.00 0.16 0.70
- 1.95-1.33 4.13 0.00' 3;77 16.98-47.17 32.08,
'0.00 2.22 3.73 5.11 3.74
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
TOTAL
- 8
~90 241 489-454 1282 O.62 7.02 18.80 38.14 35.41
~100.00
'NUREG.1414 B-39 f
p t-e v
y y
. -------- -------S--------
,,c i.,m.
st-e
+
,---esi.---
=e.
n
-=rm.
eem- _ _. - = _.,
s
f 4
Nuclear Regulatory Cessafssion's survey on DifferingLProfessional Views (DPV) and Opinions (DPC) and Open Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross Classifications TABLE OF 02 8Y 06 02(023 Place of Work).
06(06: OPV/DP0 Effective Means' Expression)
FREQUENCY PERCENT
-ROW PCT 1
Missing. Yes No Don't.
Know
- TOTAL
-i
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +.
Missing 3.
1~
4-3 11-0.23 0.08 0.31 0.23-0.86-i 27.27-9.09 36.36 27.27
'j 17.65 0.20 1.37 20.64'
.................+........+........+........+........+
Ceaunissioner off 2
29-
'20 55
- 106 0.16
, 2.26 1.56 4.29 8.27 1.89-27.36-
-18.87 51.89-11.76 5.75 6.83 11.75
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +.
E00 0ffice 2
63 37 94 196 4
0.16 4.91 2.89~
- 7.33
- 15'.29
-1.02-32.14 18.88-47.96 11.76 12.50 12.63
'20.09'
.................+........+........+........+........,
j AE00'
~0 24 8-
>20 60:
.- l 0.00 1.87 0.62 12.18 4.68-l 0.00 40.00-13.33
-46.67 0.00 4.76 2.73
.5.98 1
.................+........+........+................+
1 NRR I
1, 143 81.
' 92 317-4 0.08 11.15-6.32' 7.18 24.73 0.32
~45.11 25.553 29.02
['
5.88 28.37 27.65
-19.66-
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +
NMss
.3 38
.. 26 51 8 118-0.23 2.96 2.03 3.98 9.20' 2.54-
-32.20 22.03 43.22 17.65t
- 7.54 '
8.87 10.90
.................+........+........+........+........+
ToiAL
. 17 504 293 468-1282-1
'1.33 39.31 22.85
-36.51
-100.00-(CONTlWUED) i NUREG-1414 B-40 a
1~,,
1y s
~,,.
-]
n
.u o
o.
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission's survey on
'Offfering Professional Views (DPV) and opinions (DPO) l and open Deer Pctity (CDP) l Froepensles and Cross Cls.snifIcetiens TABLE OF e2 BY e6 st(e2: Place of Work) 06(06: DPV/DP0 fffective Means tapression)
FRESWWCY PERCENT 80W PCT COL PCT Wissing ' Yes
'No-Don't I
i TOTAL i
j EneA.
.................+........+....,...+........+........+
)
i REs 0'
'46 19 30 95 i
L 0.00' 3.59' 1.48 2.34 7.41 0.00 48.42 20.00 31.58 l
0.00-9.13 6.48 6.41
.................+........+........+.......4.....jee+
I Region i 1
47-16 26 90 1
0.08 3.67
- 1.25 2.03.
7.02 l
1.11 52.22 17.78 28.89 i
5.88 9.33 5.46 5.56 l
.................+........+........+........+........+
Region Il 2
37 19 22 80 t
0.16 2.89 1,48
-1.72 6.24 2.50 46.25 23,75 27.50 l
11.76 7.34-6.48 4.70 I
.................+........+........+........+........+
l Region !!!
2 30 27 2.50 l' 7.10 32 91 1
0.16
.2.34 2.11 2.20 32.9Y l 29,67 35.16-11.76 5.0S l
?.22 6.84 l
.................+........+...... 9 u.......+........+
Region IV 0
2'r 23.1 16 65 0.00-2.11 1.72 1.25 5.07
~0.00 41.54 13.85 24.62 0.00 5.36 7.51 3.42
.................+........+........+........+........+
Region V 1
19 14 19 53
-0.08-1.48 1.09 1.48 4.13 1.89 35.85 26.A2' 35.85 5.88 3.77 4.78
- 4.06 ~
.................+........+........+........+........+
TOTAL 17 504 293 468' 1282 1.33 39.31 22.85 36.51 100.00 NUREG-1414 B.41 I
p i
3
'1.
2.....
m.
. - 7 Nuclear Regulatory casuission's Survey en j
Differing Professional Vim (DPV) and opinions (DPO) l end open Door Po' icy (CDP)
Frespencies and Cross Classifications TABLE OF et FY (4AA l
1 42(42: Place of Work) 06AA(e6a DPV/DP0 Process too CabreWLong) i FREeUENCY I
PERC8NT i
- Not, Reesen Circled Circled TOTAL
.................+........+........+
Missing.
9 2-11
.0.70
. 0.16 0.86 l
81.82 -
18.18 O.75 2.63'
.................+..................
Counissioner off 100 6
106
[
7.80 0.47 8.27 94.34
.5.66 i
8.29 7.89 l
EDO office 189 7
196 14.74-0.55 15.29
'96.43 3.57 i
15.67
'9.21
.................+........+........+
kEOD 59 1
60 4.60-0.08 4.68 '
98.33 1.67 i
4.89 1.32
................+.................+
Nat 292 25 317 i
22.78 1.95 24.73 92.11 7.89 24.21 32.89
.................+........+........+
NMss 109 9
118 l
8.50 0.70; 9.20 92.37' 7.63 9.04 11.84
)
................. +........ +........ + -
TOTAL 1206 76 1282 94.07 5.93 100.00
)
I (CONTINUED)
NUREG.1414 B-42 1
+
r
--ree-,-
.,C.-ew.-
.we,.
,, +
-e.-.
,w,-.%-,
.--+ m m
_..,+.-,,,,,...
.-m<..
-.~r,--%
m-..w
+. -
-1
o Wuclear Reputatory Counission's Survey en i
Offferine Professional views (DPV) and opinions (OPO) and open Door Pelley (CDP),
Frequencies and Cross Classifications TABLE of 82 BY 06AA e2(42: Place of Werk) 06AA(06at DPV/DP0 Process too CabreW Leng)
FREGUENCY PERCINT ROW PCT COL PCT Wot Reason Circled circled TOTAL
..........................+........+
l RES 90 5
95 7.02 0.39 7.41 94.74 5.26 7.46 6.58 j
.................+................+
Region 1 86 4
90 6.71 0.31 7.02 l
95.56 4.44 l
7.13 5.26
.................+........+........+
Region !I 76 4
80 i
5.93 0.31 6.24 95.00 5.00 6.30 9.26
...e....+........+
Region !!!
83 8
91 6.47 0.62 7.10 l
91.21 8.79 5
6.88 10.53
..................i.................+
i Region IV 62 3
65 4.84 0.23 5.07 95.38 4.62 l
5.14 3.95 l
.................+........+........+
Region V 51 2
53 3.98 0.16 4.13 96.23 3.77 j
4.23 2.63
.................+........+.........
TOTAL 1206 76 1282 94.07 5.93 100.00 9
1 I
NUREG-1414 B-43 4
I
.. o i
uustear Regulatory Comission's Survey on Difforing Professional Views (DPV) and opinions (DPo) l and open Deer Policy (CDP) l Fregencies and Cross Classificettens 1
TABLE OF et SY e6AS 02(e2: Place of Werk) e6A8(e6bt DPv/DP0 Viewed Negatively by Peers) l
)
l FREGUENCY i
PERCENT AcW PCT j
Circled Circled TOTAL I
.................+.................+
l Missing 8
3 11 0.62 0.23 0.M
)
72.73 27.27 s
0.68 2.M
.........................+.........
comisolener off 99 7
1M 7.72 0.55 8.27 93.40 6.60 4
8.41 6.47 i
E00 office iS2 14 196 14.20 1.09 15.29 92.M 7.14 15.46 13.33
.........................+........+
AEco 57 3
60 4.45 0.23 4.68 95.00 5.00 4.84.
2.M 1
.................+................+
NRR 280 37 317 21.M 2.89 24.73 t
88.33 11.67 23.79 35.24
................+........+.........
NMss 111 7
118
.j 8.66 0.55 9.20 94.07 5.93 9.43 6.67
.................+........+........+
TOTAL 1177 105 1282 91.81 8.19' 100.00 i
l
-]
i 6
NUREG-1414 B-44 j
i ON 2'1
' ~..
,_.1_.-._....._....,
'h,_
,-.c 71.1.
1 1
Nuclear Regulatory Counission's survey en Offferine Professienst Views (DPV) and opinions (DPO)
'l and open Door Policy (CDP)
Fregencies and Cross Classifications i
l TABLE OF 42 st 06AS l
02(42: Place of Work) 06A8(06bt DPV/DP0 viewed Wesatively by Peers) l l
l FRESUENCY PERCENT 40W PCT COL PCT Not Reesen circled Circled TOTAL
.................+........+........+
RES 89 6
95 6.94 0.47 7.41 93.68 6.32 7.56 5.71
.................+........+........+
i Region !
87 3
90 l
6.79 0.23 7.02 96.67 3.33 7.39 2.86
.................+........+........+
l Region !!
72 8
80 i
5.62 0.62 6.24 j
90.00 10.00 6.12 7.62
.........................+........+
Region !!!
85 6
91 6.63 0.47 7.10 93.41 6.59 7.22 5.71 l
Reston IV 59 6
65 I
4.60 0.47 5.07 90.77 9.23 5.01 5.71
.................+........+........+
Region V 44 5
53 3.74 0.39 4.13 90.57 9.43 4.08 4.76
.................+.................
TOTAL 1177 105 1282 91.81 8.19 100.00
)
NUREG-1414 B-45 1
.,~,....,,..-..,-e-
,..,.-.--+-+-,---ev--+,:-+-
- - * - - + - * - - - ~ ~ --
- --ee
- * - - ' ' ' ' ' - ' ' ' ~ " ' " " ' * * ~ * ~ '
~ ~ ^ ^ ~ " ' ^ *
.:s l
l l-Nwlear Regulatory Commission's Survey en l
Olffering Professionst Views (DPV) and opinions (DPO) and Open Deer Policy (CDP).
l Fremencies and Cross Classifications t
TABLE OF 02 SY 06AC 82(42: Place of herk) 06AC(06c DPV/DP0 Concerned About Reprisal)-
l FREGUENCY PERC857-(
R0W PCT i
COL PCT Not Reason circled Circled TOTAL
.................+.................+
Missing-7 4
11 0.55 0.31 0.46 43.64 36.36 l
0.68 1.61
..........................+........+
Casuilsaionor off 88 18 106' l
6.46 1.40 8.27 l
83.02 16.98 8.51 7.26l
.......................... +..........
EDO offlee 165 31 196 i
12.87 2.42 15.29 1
84.18 15.82 15.96 12.50
..........................+........+
AE00 51-9 60 3.98' O.70 4.68 85.00 15.00 4.93 3.63 i
................. +........ +........ +.
NRR 252 65 317 19.66 5.07 24.73 79.50 20.50 24.37 26.21
.................+........+........,
NMS$
96 22
,118 7.49 1.72 9.20-81.36 18.64 9.28 8.87-
..........................+........+
TOTAL 1034 248 1282 80.66 19.34 100.00 (CONTINUED) 3
\\
NUREG-1414 B-46 1
-.--.L..
.'L.
...-::-........-,,-.-L.-..---..
^
1 J
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's survey on l
Differing Professional Views (DFV) and opinions (DPO)
MW cpen Door Policy (CDP) j Frequenc!:=s and Cross Classifications TABLE OF 42 BY 06AC i'
02(e2: Place of Work)'
e6AC(06c: DPV/DP0 concerned About Reprisal).
l FREeuf!NCY PERNNT RP4 PCT i;0L PCT Not Reason Circled Circled TOTAL 3
.................+........+........+
7 Res 78 17 95 6.08 1.33 7.41 i
82.11 17.89 j
7.54-6.85 j
i Region 1 79 11 90 6.16 0.86 7.02 87.78 12.22 7.64 4.44
.................+..e.....+........+
Region !!
61 19 80 l
4.76 1.48 6.24 76.25 23,75 5.90 7.M
.................+.................+
Region Ill 72 19 91 5.62 1.48 7.10 i
79.12 20.88 6.96 7.M l
Region IV 46 19 65 3.59 1.48 5.07 70.77
' 29.23 4.45 7.M ~
.........................+........+
Region V 39 14 53 3,04 1.09 4.13 73.58 26.42 l
3.77 5.65
.................+........+........+
TOTAL 1034 248 1282 80.M 19.34 100.00 NUREG-1414 B.47 j
_-_,._,-_-.-,__..._,.._..s...~_,,,._,m..-..,...,.,,_,m,~..
Nuclear Regulstory Coselasion's Survoy on Differing Professional Views (DPV) and Opinions (DPO) and Open Deer PetIcy (CDP)-
- Frespencies and Crose class'fications TABLE OF Q2 BY 06AD 02(82: Place of Work).
06AD(Q6d Reviewer Predisposed Outcasa DPV).
FR80UENCY PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Net Reason circled Circled TOTAL
.................+..................
Missing.
7 4
11
'O.55 0.31
.0.86 63.64-36.36 0.61 2.99
.................+..................
Comissioner off 91 15' 106 7.10 1.17 8.27 85.85 14.15 7.93 11.19 EDO offlee 177 19 196 13.81 1.48 15.29 90.31 9.69 15.42 14.18 l AE00 57 3
60 4.45 0.23 4.68 95.00 5.00 4.97 2.24 NRR
'284 33 317 22.15
.2.57 24.73 89.59 10.41 24.74.
24.63
.................+..................
NMss 109 9
118 8.50 0.70 9.20 92.37-7.63
{
9.49 6.72 TOTAL 1148 134 1282 89.55 10.45 100.00 (CONTlWUED) 4 l
NUREG-1414 B-48 l
m.,
e o
Nuclear Regulatory Comission's survey en Differing Professionel views (DPV) and opinions (DPO) and Open Door Pelley (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross Classifications TABLE OF e2 8Y e640 02(e2: Place of Werk) 06AD(e6d: Reviewer Prodisposed outcome DPV) i FRieUENCY-PERCENT i
-R0W PCT s
i
-COL PCT Not Reassa Circled Circled TOTAL-i
.................+..................
i als 85 10 95 6.63 0.78 7.41 i
89.47 10.53 t
7.40-7.46
.................+.................+
Regfon 1 84 6
90 6.55 0.47
.7.02 l
93.33 6.67 7.32
-4.48
.................+........+........+
Region !!
71 9
80 l
5.54' 0.70 6.24 i
88.75-11.25 L
6.18 6.72 Region Ill 79 12 91 6.16 0.94 7.10 86.81 13.19 6.88 8.96.
................. +........ +.........,
Region IV
$4 C
65-4.37 0.70 5.07-86.15 13.85 4.88 6.77.
.................+.................,
Region V 48 5
53 3.74~
0.39 4.13 90.57 9.43 4.18 3.73
.....-s...................+........+
TOTAL
.1148-134 1282 89.55 10.45 100.00 NUREG-1414 B-49
^
1 e
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's survey on Differine Professional views (DPV) and opinions (DPC)
~
and Open Door Polley (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross classifications TABLE OF 82 BY 07 82(e2: Place of Work) 07(07: Cliente For using DPV/0Po Favorable)
FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Missing Strongly Agree No Disagree Strongly Agree opinion Olsagree TOTAL
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Missing 3
1 0
1 3
3 11 0.23 0.08 0.00 0.08-0.23 0.23 0.86 27.27 9.09 0.00 9.09 27.27.
27.27 23.08 2.27 0.00 0.22 0.82 3.09
.................+........+........+........+........$........+.......+
j commtsaioner off 2
2-
~24 43 27 8
106
'0.16 0.16 1.87 3.35 2.11 0.62 8.27 1.89 1.89 22.64 40.57 25.47 7.55 15.38 4.55 7.62 9.58 7.42-8.25
.................+........+........$........+........+........+........,
200 office 2
6 39 96
'44 9
196 0.16 0.47 3.04 7.49 3.43-0.70 15.29 1.02 3.06 19.90 48.98 22.45 4.59 15.36 13.64 12.38 21.38_
12.09 9.28 i
.................+........+.......4........+........+.......4........+
l AE00 0
.1 12 26 18 3
60 0.00 0.08 0M 2.03' 1.40 0.23 4.68 0.00 1.67 20.00 43.33 30.00 5.00 0.00 2.27 3.81 5.79-4.95 3.09
.................+........+........+........'+........+........+........+-l NRR 3
14 93 87
~98 22 317 0.23
.1.09 7.25 6.79 7.64 1.72
' 24.73 0.95 4.42 29.34 27.44 30.91 6.94 23.08 31.82 29.52
'19.38 26.92 22.68
.................+........e........+........+........+........+........+
t NMss 1
4 23 55-22 13 118 0.08 0.31 1.79 4.29 1.72 1.01 9.20 O.85 3.39.
19.49 46.61
.18.64 11.02 7.69 9.09 7.30 12.25 6.04 13.40
.................+........+........+........+........+........+........+
TOTAL 13 44 315 449 364 97 1282 i
1.01 3.43 24.57 35.02 28.39 7.57 100.00 (CONTIWUED) i NUREG-1414 B-50
j Nuc1 ear Regulatory Commission's Survey on Olffering Professional views (DPV) and opinions (DPO) 1 and open Door Policy (00P)
Frequencies and Cross Classifications
\\
l l
TABLE OF 02 BY 07 l
-l h
02(02: Place of Work) 07(07: Climate-For using DPV/0P0 Favorable)
]
FREOUENCY I
F'ERCENT ROW PCT COL PCT Misska strongly Agree No Disagree Strongly Agree Opinion Olsegree TOTAL l
.................+........+........+........+........+........+........+
t REs 0
2 25 30 28 10 95 i
0.00 0.16 1.95 2.34 2.18 0.78 7.41
(
0.00 2.11 26.32 31.58 29.47 10.53 O.00 4.55
-7.94 6.68 7.69 10.31
.................+.................+........+........+........+........+
Region I 1
5 22 34 21 7
90 t
0.08 0.39
'1.72 2.65 1.64 0.55 7.02 1.11 5.56 24.44 37.78 13.33 7.78 7.69 11.36 6.98 7.57 5.77 7.22 4
. -............... +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
l Res!on II 0
3 26 20 28-3 80 O.00 0.23 2.03 1.56-2.18-0.23
-6.24-l 0.00 3.75 32.50 25.00 35.00 3.75 0.00 6.82 8.25 4.45 7.69 3.09
.................+........+..6....+........+........+........+........+
f Region III 1
3 23 22 36 6
91 0.08 0.23-1.79 1.72 2.81 0.47 7.10 1.10 3.30 25.2 7 24.18 39.56' 6.59 7.69 6.82 7.30 4.90 9.69 6.19
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Region IV 0
2 16 17 21 9
65 0.00 0.16 1.25 1.33 1.64-0.70 5.07 0.00 3.08 24.62 26.15 32.31 13.85 O 00 4.55 5.08 3.79 5.77-9.28
.................+........+........+.........+o.......+.......4........+
Region v 0
1 i t' '
18 18 4
53 0.00 0.08 0.94 1.40-1.40 0.31 4.13 O.00 1.89
, 22.64 33.96 33.96 7.55 0.00 2.27 3.81 4.01 4.95 4.12
.................+........+........+.......4........+........+........,
TOTAL 13 44-315 449 364 97 1282 1.01 3.43 24.57 35.02 28.39 7.57 100.00 t
NUREG-1414 B-51 t
a.
.u
O 4
r Nuclear Regulatory comission's survey on i
Offfering Professional Views (DPV) and Opinions (DP0)
' ~
and Open Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross. Classifications-
- i l
TABLE OF 82 8Y 08 82(42: Place of Work) 08(e8: Familiar With Goal of.0 pen Door (00P))
FREGUENCY P8tCENT I
ROW PCT COL PCT Missing very Somewhat Lielted Not Familiar Familiar Familiar Ausre TOTAL'
.{
.................+........+........+........+........+........+
Missing 3
1 3.
3
. 1 11.
I 0.23 0.08 0.23'
.0.23 0.08 0.86 a
27.27 9.09 27.27 27.27 9.09 50.00 0.55 0.68 0.86 0.32
-.................+........+........+........+........+........+.
l co missIoner off 0
16
'34:
26 30 106 0.00 1.25 2.65 2.03~
-2.34 8.27 O.00 15.09
'32.68 24.53 28.30 0.00 8.84 7.76 7.49 9.68
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
ED0 0ffice 0
28 57 56 55-196 0.00 2.18 4.45 4.37 4.29 15.29 0.00 14.29 29.08 28.57
~28.06 l
0.00 15.47 13.01, 16.14-17.74
................. +........ +........ +........ +................. +
AE00 0
9 13 19 '
19
'60 0.00 0.70 1.01
'1.48 1.48 4.64
?
0.00 15.00 21.67 31.67 31.67 0.00 4.97 2.97 5.48.
6.13
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
WRR 11 43-126 73
~74 317 0.08 3.35 9.83 5.69 5.77 24.73 0.32 13.56 39.75 23.03 23.34 16.67 23.76 28.77 21.04 23.87
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
.0 16 30 38 34 118 0.00 1.25 2.34-2.96.
2.65 9.20 0.00 13.56 25.42 32.20 28.81' I
0.00 8.84-6.85 10.95 10.97 i.
.................+........+........+........+........+........+
TOTAL 6
.181 438 347 310 1282 0.47 14.12 34.17 27.07 24.18-100.00 i
(CONilWUED)
+
NUREG-1414 B.52
+--w.-e-- - -
,,-,-rs%,nw->---ws--e--
m
-w--,
-r-n.m.-,
-u-
--n----w,,-+.
-,....,-e-,--,,---,
- -. - -. - - - - = -.., - -
f f
NacLear Regulatory Commission's Survey on Differing Professional-Views (DPV) and opinions (DPO) and open Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross Classifications TABLE OF 02 BY 08 02(02: Place of Work) 0S(48: Familiar With Goal of Open Door (CDP))
FRE00ENCY PSRCENT ROW PCT Not COL PCT-Missing Very.
Sopwhat Limited Familiar Famittar Familiar Ausre TOTAL
...................................+........+........+........+
RES 0
8 33 38' 16 95 0.00 0.62 2.57 2.96 1.25 7.41-0.00 8.42 34.74-40.00
'16.84 0.00 4.42 7.53 10.95 5.16
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Region !-
0 16 29 23 22 90 -
0.00 1.25 2.26 1.79 1.72 7.02 4
0.00 17.78 32.22 25.56 24.44 0.00 8.84 6.62 6.63 7.10
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Region II 0.
16 28 16 20 80 0.00 1.25 2.18 1.25 1.56 6.24 0.00 20.00 35.00 20.00 25.00 0.00 8.84 6.39 4.61 6.45
.................$........+........+........+........+........+
Region 111 0
12 35 26 18 91 0.00 0.94 2.73 2.03 1.40 7.10 0.00 13.19 38.46 28.57 19.78 l
0.00 6.63 7.99 7.49 5.81 l
.................+=.......+....... 4........+........+........+
Region IV 0
11 30 15 9
65 0.00 0.86 2.34 1.17.
0.70 5.07 0.00 16.92 46.15 23.08 13.85 0.00 6.08 6.85 4.32 2.90
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Region V 2
5 20 14 12 53 0.16 0.39 1.56 1.09 0.94 4.13 3.77 9.43 37.74 26.42 22.64 33.33 2.76 4.57 4.03.
3.87
.................+........+........+.......
4.......
4........+
TOTAL 6'
181 438
. 347 310' 1282 0.47 14.12 34.17 27.07 24.18 100.00 3
4 NUREG-1414 B-53
1 i
I Nuclear Regulatory Comission8s Survey on Differing Professional views (DPV) and opinions (DPo) and Open Door Policy (00P)
Frequencies and Cross-classifications TABLE OF 02 SY 09 i
02(02: Place of Work) 09(e9: Appropriate Use of 00P Clear) 4 FREeUENCY PERCENT
)
ROW PCT Strongly Agree' '
No.
Olsegree Strongly J
COL PCT Missing Agree Opinion Disagree TOTAL
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Missing 3
1 4
2 1
0 11
]
0.23 0.08 0.31 0.16.
0.08 0.00 0.86 27.27 9.09 36.36 14.18 9.09 0.00 l
13.04 1.64 0.93 0.35 0.63 0.00
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +,
co misaioner off 3
5 26-50 15 7
106 0.23 0.39 2.03
. 3.90 1.17 0.55 8.27 2.83 4.72 24.53 47.17 14.15 6.60 13.04 8.20 6.05 8.77 9.43 17.95 I
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
EDO office 3
8 54 99 25 7
196 2
0.23 0.62 4.21 7.72 1.95 0.55 15.29 1.53 4.08 27'55 50.51 12.76 3.57 13.04 13.11 12.56 17.37 15.72 17.95-
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
AE00-0 4
16 35 5
0 60 0.00 0.31 1.25 2.73 0.39 0.00 4.68 0.00 6.67-26.67 58.33 8.33 0.00' O.00 6.56 3.72 6.14 3.14 0.00
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
NRR 7
13 118' 134 40 5
317 0.55 1.01 9.20 10.45 3.12 0.39 24.73 2.21 4.10 37.22 42.27 12.62 1.58 30.43 21.31 27.44 23.51 25.16 12.82
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
mess 2
5 36 56
' 14 5
118 0.16 0.39 2.81 4.37 1.09 0.39 9.20 1.69 4.24 30.51 47.46 11.86 4.24 8.70 8.20 8.37 9.82 8.81 12.82
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
TOTAL 23 61 430 570 159 39 1282 1.79 4.76 33.54 44.46 12.40 3.04 100.00 4
(CONTINUED)
NUREO-1414 B i n
~. _ _.. _.,
Nuclear Regulatory Connission's survey on Dif fering Professional Views (DPV) and opinions (DPC) and Open Door Polfcy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross.'Jlassifications TABLE OF 02 BY 09 02(02: Place of Work) 09(09: Appropriate Use of 00P Clear)
FREQUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT
' PCT Missing Strongly Agree No Disagree strongly Agree opinion Disagree TOTAL j
r
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
REs 3
2 32 44 13 1
95 1
0.23 0.16 2.50 3.43 1.01 0.08 7.41
-3.16 2.11 33.68 46.32 13.68 1.05 13.04 3.28 7.44 7.72 s.18 2.56 i
l
................. +........ +........ +.................. +........ +........ +
(
Region I 1
4 33 34 9
5 90 l
0.08 0.62 2.57 2.65 0.70 3.39 7.02 1.11 8.89 36.67.
37.78 10.00 5.56 4.35 13.11 7.67 5.96 5.66 12.82 l
.................+........+.................+................+.........
1 Region 11 0
7 35 24 13 1'
80 0.00 0.55 2.73 1.87 1.01 0.08 6.24 0.00 8.75 43.75 30.00 16.25 1.25 0.00 11.48 8.14 4.21
-8.18 2.56
................. +........ + <........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
1 Region 111 0
4 31-42
'11-3 91 0.00 0.31.
2.42 3.28 0.86 0.23 7.10 0.00 4.40 34.07 46.15 12.09 3.30 0.90 6.56 7.21 7.37 6.92 7.69 j
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Region IV 0
I 27 30 3
3 65 0.00 0.16 2.11 2.34 0.23 0.23 5.07 O.00 3.08 41.54 46.15 4.62 4.62 0.00 3.28 6.28 5.26 l
1.89 7.69
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +...... +
Region v 1
2 18 20 10 2
53 1
0.08 0.16 1.40 1.56 0.78 9.16 4.13 1.89 3.TT 33.96 37.74 18.87 7.77 i
4.35 3.28 4.19 3.51 6.29 3.13
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
TOTAL 23 61 430 570 159 39 1282 1.79 4.76 33.54 44.46 12.40 3.04 100.00 j
i NUREG-1414 B-55 i
e 0$
6
,-e
,.,.__m.,__,,
u._.y.6...,....,
r.~,....-..ry,-
,,,,,,-.3..
,,,-,r,
~%-
..-+-v.,wy,-.-w,.
. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's survey on Differine Professional Views (DPV) and Opinions (DPO) and Open Door Policy (00P)
Frequencies and Cross Classifications TABLE OF 02 BY Q10 ettet: Place of Work)
Q10(010: 00P Effective Means of tapression)
FREQWENCY PERCENT ROW PCT 00L PCT-Missing Yes No Don't Know TOTAL
.......................... +........ +........ +......... -
Missing 3_
2 4<
2_
11 0.23
- 0.16 0.31 0.16 0.86 27.27 18.18 36.36 18.18 18.75 0.43-2.04 0.33
.................+........+........+........,........+
Cemetasioner Off 2
29 14 61
'106 0.16 2.26 1.09 4.76 8.27 1,89
'27.36 13.21 57.55 12.50 6.17 7.14 10.17
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +
E00 office, 3
57 38 98 196 0.23 4.45 2.96 7.64 15.29 1.53 29.08 19.39 50.00 18.75 12.13-19.39 16.33
.................+........+........+........+........+
AE00-0 19 6
35 60 0.00
,1.48 0.47 2.73 4 68 0.00 31.67 10.00 58.33 0.00 4.04 3.06 5.83
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +
NRR 4.
129 53
'131 317 0.31 10.06-4.13 10.22 24.75 1.26-40.69 16.72.
41.32 25.00 27.45 27.04 21.83
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +
NMts 1
38 18'
- 61 118 0.08 2.96 1.40' 4.76 9.20 0.85 32.20-15.25 51.69 6.25 8.09 9.18 10.17
................. +........ +........ +........ +......., +
TOTAL 16 470 196 600 1282 1.25 36.66 15.29 46.80 100.00 (CONTINUED) te NUREG-14'i4 :
B-56 4
'9 0
f Nucl ear Regutatory Commisaton's Survey on Differing Professionst Views (DPV) and Opinions (DPO) and open Door Policy (CDP)-
Frequencies and Cross classifications TABLE OF 02 8Y 010 82(02: Place of Werk) 010(010: CDP Effective Means of tapressich)
FREQUENCY PERCENT R0W PCT 00L PCT Missing Yes No Don't Know TOTAL
.................+........+........+........+.......+
Ris 1
30 16 48 95 0.08 2.34 1.25 3.74 7.41 1.05 31.58-16.84 50.53 6.25-6.38 8.16 8.00
.................+........+........+........+........+
Region I 1
45 L6 38 90 0.08 3.51 0.47 2.96 7.02 1.11 50.00 6.67 42.22 6.25 9.57 3.06 6.33
....................................................+
Region II O
39 9-32 80 0.00 3.04 0.70 2.50 6.24 0.00 48.75
'11.25 40.00 0.00 8.30 4.59 5.33
.................+........+........$........+........+
Region 111 0
35 13.
43 91-0.00 2.73 1.01 3.35 7.10 0.00 38.46 14.29-47.25 0.00 7.45 6.63 7.17
.................+........+........+........+........+
Region IV 0
29 10 26 '
65 0.00 2.26 0.78 2.03 5.07-0.00 44.62 15.38 40.00 0.00 6.17 5.10 4.33
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Region V 1
18 9
25 53
-0.08 1.40 0.70 1.95 4.13 1.89 33.96 16.98 47.17 6.25 3.83 4.59 4.17
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +
TOTAL 16 470 1%
600-1282 1.25 36.66 15.29 46.80 100.00 NUREG-1414 B-57
+
e s
,%w.
1 t
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's survey on Olffering Professional views (DPV) and opinions (DPo) and open Door Policy (CDP) 4 i
Frequencies and Cross Classifications TA8LE OF et BY ell l
82(82: Place of Work) 011(011: Climate for using CDP Favorable)
FREeutNCY
]
PSRCENT 2
80W PCT
)
COL PCT Missing Strongly A8ree We Olsagree Strongly Agree opinion Olsagree TOTAL j
................. +........ +........ +................. +........ +........ +
Missing 3
1 0
2 3
2 11 0.23 0.08 0.00 0.16 0.23 0.16 0.86
[
27.27 9.09
'O.00 18.18 27.27 18.18 13.64 1.37 0.00 0.35 1.40 3.45 l
................. +................ +........ +................ +........ +
q connissioner off 4
1 23 59 14 3
106 i
0.31 0.23 1.79 4.60 1.09 0.23 8.27-l 1
3.77 2.83 21.70 55.66 13.21 2.83 i
18.18 4.11 6.55 10.44 6.54 5.17
.................+........+........+........+........+........+.........
EDO offtee 3
4 40 93 40 12 196 I
l 0.23 0.62 3.12 7.25 3.12 0.94 15.29 1.53 4.08 20.41 47.45 20.41 6.12 l
13.64 10.96 11.40 16.49 18.69 20.69
.................+........+........+................+........+........+
i Atop 0
5' 12 32 10
.1 60 E
0.00 0.39 0.94 2.50 0.78 0.08 4.68 i
0.00 8.33 20.00 53.33 16.67 1.67 0.00 6.85-3.42 5.67 4.67 1.72
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +.
NRR 5
20 99 125 1 55 13 317-O.39 1.56 7.72 9.75 4.29 1.01 24.73 1.58 6.31 31.23 39.43 17.35 4.10 22.73 27.40 28.21 22.16 25.70 22.41 l
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
l NMss 1
8 29 54 15-11 118 l
0.08 0.62 2.26 4.21 1.17 0.86 9.20 O.85 6.78 24.58 45.76 12.71 9.32 4.55 10.96 8.26 9.57 7.01 18.97 i
................. +........ +....... +........ +........ +........ +........ +
TOTAL 22 T3 351 564 214 58 1282 1.72 5.69 27.38 43.99 16.69 4.52 100.00 (CONTINUED)
NUREG-1414 B-58 Y
ew>
t-3 w.ee-
-v-=-w--
i.Wy
==mv
-,-se--w-w=--w -w -> w - s v e -
--..~.-r-sr-wwi-me-e-
++~~--****ee-n w---
owee
--e e-e-*--*-+4
=
o o
suelear Reputatory Comission's survey on Differing Professional views (OPV) and opinions (DP0f and Open Door Policy (CDP)
Frequencies and Cross. Classifications TABLE OF 42 SY til 42(02: Place of Werk) 011(011: Cliaste for using ODP Favorable)
I FREGUENCY PERCENT ROW PCT s
COL PCT Missing Strongly Agree No Olsegree Strongly Agree opinion Ofsagree TOTAL
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........,
RES 1
2 26 43 20 3
95 j
0.08 0.16 2.03 3.35 1.56 0.23 7.41 1.05 2.11 27.37 45.26 21.05 3.16 4.55 2.74 7.41 7.62
-9.35 5.17
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
togien 1 3
9 32 38
-6 2
90 0.23 0.70 2.50 2.96 0.47 0.16 7.02 3.33 10.00 35.56-42.22 6.67 2.22 13.64 12.33 9.12 6.74 2.80-3.45 l
.......................... +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +.
]
togien II
.1 9
28 30 11 1
80 0.08 0.70 2.18 2.34 0.86 0.08 6.24 1.25.
11.25 35.00
.37.50-13.75 1.25 4.55 12.33 7.98 5.32-5.14 1.72 1
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Reglen III 0
2 28 41 16 4
91 0.00 0.16 2.18
'3.20 1.25 0.31-7.10 0.00 2.20 30.77 45.05-17.58 4.40 I
0.00 2.74 7.98 7.27:
'7.48 6.90
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
Region ly 0
4 22 22 12
-5 65 0.00-0.31' 1.72 '
1.72 0.94 0.39
.5.07
)
0.00 6.15 33.85 33.85 18.46.
7.69 0.00 5.48 6.27 3.90 5.61 8.62 i
..........................+........+........+........+........+........+
Region v i
2 12 25 L12 1
53 0.08 0.16 0.94 1.95 0.94 0.08 4.13 1.89 3.77 22.64 47.17 22.64 1.89-4.55 2.74 3.42 4.43 5.61 1.72
................. +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +........ +
TOTAL-22 73 351 564 214 58 1282 1.72 5.69 27.38 43.99 16.69 4.52 100.00' l
l 1
i a
NUREG-1414 B-59
.b
,.,.. -,,_...- -., _ -._ ~ _ -..
,,,,_,_,,,,---....-,_..,,v..
....~. <
4 4
4 APPENDIX 5.
i 1
4 NUREG-1414:
B-60
]__
.. -. -. =.- _.
o Nu3100r Regulatiry ComalC31Cn'0 Surv0y Cn Diffcring PrGfCO31cnal View] (DFV) cnd Opinicn3 (DPO) and open Door Policy (ODP) l Chi-Square Significance Tests.
CADIOD PROCEDURE RESPONSE 2 Q1 RESPONSE LEVELS (R)=
4 i
WEIGHT VARIABLE:
POPULATIONS' (s)=
1 DATA SET MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY (N)=
1277 l
OssERVATIONS (088)=
1277 j
l MAXIMUM LIKELIHo0D ANALYSIS PARAM SUB MATE
-2 LOG CONVERGENCE
+
ITERATION ITERATION LIKELIN000 CRITERION l
0 0
3540.6 1-i j
1 0
3540.6 0
j ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE OF CHI-SQUARE PROB LIKELIN00D RATIO 3
1212.58 0.0001 1
i i
1 J
i l-i h
NUREG-1414 B-61 l-I
,'e 6.= r.c
--wv
.-w.---
i..
.c w
...w-..,
~,-....--w.-.
m--
.....-,--.m--.m-._._
w-
.m-.
_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _ _.. -. _. ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _.. _ _. _ _ _. _..._.
NO3102r Regu1CtCry CosmicciCn's Surv0y Cn 4
Differing Pr;fc 31cn 1 Views (DFV) cnd Opinicn3.(DPC) and open Door Policy (CDP)
Chi-Square Significance Tests CATNOD PROCEDURE l
RESPONSE: Q2 RESPONSE LEVELS (R)=
11 i
WEIGHT VARIABLE!
POPULATIONS (S)=
1 i
DATA SET MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY (N)=
1271 OBSERVATIONS (CBS)=
1271 l
1 MAXINUM LIKELIN000 ANALYSIS PARAM MUB MATE
-2 LOG CONVERGENCE ITERATION ITERATION LIKELIM000 CRITERION j
........................e.........................
0 0
4095.45 1
1 0
6095.45-0 4
ANALY8IS OF VARIANCE TABIi1 SOURCE DF CHI-SQUARE PROB LIKELIHOOD RATIO 10 413.20 0.0001 1
i i
B-62 i
w
- we..~,-
,,-.s-, -. -_e---+-,.,---,e,._.-._.w
,..re--...n.,,,._-..,
m m.
.-,--_____.e--_-_--,,-,.m-.-
H s NO3103r Regulattry Cosmicsicn's Surv;y cn l
Diffcring Prcfccoitn31 ViCw]-(DPV) Cnd Opinirn3 '(DPO) and Open Door Policy-(CDP)
Chi-Square Significance Tests CATMOD PROCEDURE 1
RESPONSE
Q3 RESPONSE LEVELS (R)=
4 WEIGHT VARIABLE!
POPULATIONS (S)=
1-DATA SETt' MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY (N)=
1272 i
OBSERVATIONS (CBS)=
1272 l
l l
l MAXINUM LIKELIN000 ANALYSIS
- t PARAM SUS MATE
~2 14G CONVERGENCE ITERATION-ITERATION LIKEL2H00D CRITERION 0
0 3524.73 1
1 0
3526.73 0
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE-TABLE SOURCE DF CHI-SQUARE PROS LIKELIHOOD RATIO 3
566.59 0.0001 e
I t
6
.I NUREG-1414 B-63 t
e
--w.-*
--,._-wk-m-,
-,-----..--.--,---,...-,--,---,v..
..--,.m--.-,,.---,_
4 4
Muslear RegulotSty CommiOOi6n'o'Survoy En Differing Professional Views (DPV) ond Opiniens (DPO)
Ond Open Door Policy (CDP)
Chi-Square significance Tests CATMOD PROCEDURE RESPONSEt Q4 RESPONSE LEVELS (R)=-
5 WEIGHT VARIABLE:
POPUIATIONS -
(8)=
1 DATA SETt MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY (N)=
1272 OBSERVATIONS (Ca8)=
1272 MAEIMUM LIKELIN000 ANALYSIS PARAN SUB MATE
-2 IDG CONVERGENCE ITERATION ITERATION LIKELIN00D CRITERION 0
0 4094.41 1
1 0
4094.41 0
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE DF CNI-SQUARE PROB
~
LIKELIHOOD. RATIO 4
1391.92 0.0001 I
NUREG-1414 B-64 i
l
t o
Nus100r Regulotcry cosmiccicn'o surv0y cn
- i Differing PrcfOccicn31 View] (DPV)'cnd Cpiniin3 (DPO) l cnd open Door Policy (CDP) l Chi-square significance Tests CATMOD PROCEDURE RESPONSE: 05 RESPOWst LEVELS (R)=
4 WEIGHT VARIABLE POPULATIONS (8)=
1 DATA SETt MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY (N)=
1274 OssERVATIONS- (088)=
1274 l
~ MAXIMUM LIKELIN000 ANALYSIS d
t PARAM SUB-MATE
-2 LOG CONVERGENCE ITERATION' ITERATION LIKELIMOOD CRITERION 0
0 3532.28 1
1 0
3532.28-0 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE DF.
CHI-SQUARE PROB LIKELIHOOD RATIO 3
379.29 0.0001 9
t 9
i e
i i
)
i NUREG-1414 B,
lf
~
^
n
. s MuS10ar Regulatsry C5aaissi6n'0-Survoy en Differing Pr0f000icn01 ViCwa (DFV) Ond opinion 9 (DPO) and Open Door Policy (ODP)
Chi-Square Significance Tests CATNOC PROCEDURE RESPONSE: Q6 RESPONSE LEVELS (R)=
3 WEIGHT VARIABLE:
POPULATIONS (S)=
1 DATA SET: MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY (N)=
1265 OBSERVATIONS (CBS)=
1265 MAXIMUM LIKELIN000 ANALYSIS PARAM SUB MATE
-2 LOG CONVERGENCE ITERATION
. ITERATION LIKELU1000 CRITERION 0
0 2779.49 1
1 0-2779.49 0
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE DF CNI-SQUARE PROB LIKELIN00D RATIO 2
64.04 0.0001 i
I
(
NUREG-1414 B-66
+g 4
NuS100r Regulct ry cosmicsiCn's Surv0y cn DiffOring Pr3f0031onal View 3 (DFV) cnd Opinien3 (DPC) cnd open Door Policy (ODP)
Chi-Square Significance Tests
)
i CATMOD PROCEDURE
^
RESPONSE
Q7 RESPONSE LEVELS (R)=
5 WEIGHT VARIABLE POPULATIONS (S)=
1 l
DATA SETt MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY (N)=
1269 i
{
OBSERVATIONS (CBS)=
1269 l
i MAXIMUM LIKELIN000 ANALYSIS
'.l i
l
.PARAN SUB MATE
-2 LOG-CONVERGENCE
{
i ITERATION ITERATION LIKELINCOD CRITERION
[
1 0
0 4084.75 1
i 1
0 4084.75 0
.{
i 6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE DF CHI-SQUARE PROS
[
l LIKELIHo0D RATIO 4
570.10 0.0001 i
i i
i
(
'l l
r l
l
[
t i
i i
f r
I i
i t
r NUREG-1414 B-67
-I
-. - _ _ _.. - _ _... - ~.. - - - _
g i
NuDlCOr R gulCttry ComaiO3 ion'0 Surv0y Cn i
DiffCring PrcfCO315ul View 3 (DPV) cnd Cpinicn3 (DPC)
{
and Open Door Policy (ODP) l r
Chi-Square Significance Tests
)
CATMOD PROCEDURE i
i RESPONSE: Os RESPONSE LEVELS (R)=
4
]
WEIGHT VARIASLE POPULATIONS (S)=
1-DATA SET: MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY (N)=
1276 OSSERVATIONS (OSS)=
1276
)
4 MAXINUM LIKELIN00D ANALYSIS PARAM SUS NATE
-2 IDG CONVERGENCE-ITERATION ITERATION' LIKELIN00D.
CRITERION o
0 3337.82 1
i l
1 0
3537.s2 0
i ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TASLE SOURCE DF CNI-SQUARE PROS LIKELIHOOD RATIO 3
113.22 0.0001 1
l 1
1 i
L i
NUREG-1414' B-68 d
Musloor Regulatsry CsamiOOisn'o Survoy en-
Chi-Square Significance Tests,
CAI9100: PROCEDURE
RESPONSE
Q9' RESPONSE LEVELS'(R)=
5 WEIGHT VARIABLE
-POPULATIONS-(S)=
1 DATA SET MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY (N)=
1259
-Ca8ERVATIONS (085)= -1259' i
MAXIMUN LIKELIN000 ANALYSIS
?ARAM SUB MATE
-2 LOG -
CONVERGENCE ITERATION ITERATION-LIKELINOOD-CRITERION i
0 0
4052.56 1
l' 0
4052.56 0
i ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE i
.j SOURCE
' DF CHI-SQUARE
-PROB l
LIKELIN00D RATIO 4
926;97
'0.0001' j
J i
S i
i t
l i
NUREG-1414 B-69
\\
m
)
k s
s NuslCOr R;gulatery C;amiccicn'o Surycy on.
Diffcring~PrefCOcien31 Vicws (DPV) cad Opinion 3'(DPO).
and~open-Door Policy (ODP) ~
.- Chi-square Significence Tests CATMOD PROCEDURE RESPONSES-Q10 RESPONSE LEVELS (R)='
3 l,
WEIGHT VARIABLE :
POPULATIONS
. (S)=
'1' 1
L
' DATA-SET MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY-(N)=.1266' CBSERVATIoNS'-(085)=
1266 L
l
-t l
MAXIMUM LIKELIM0OD ANALYSIS PARAN
'SUB-MATE
-2 14G
' CONVERGENCE-l ITERATION.'
ITERATION ~
LIKELIHOOD CRITERION L
.0
~0' 2781.69
'l-l 1
0 2781.69
'0-
?
l l
2 l.
ANALYSIS'0F VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE DF
. CHI-SQUARE PROB <
LIKELIHOOD RATIO 2
.222'95:
.'O.0001 i
0 s
i i
NUkEG-1414 B-70 j
o
fl
'o-
- o-Musloar Regulatary C maisoien's Survoy en
, Di.tforing Pr8f00si6nal' ViCwo (DPV): Ond opinienG-- (DPO) and Open Door-Policy (ODP)
Chi-Square Significance Tests CATMOD PROCEDURE RESPONSE ~ Q11 RESPONSE LEVELS-(R)'=
5 WEIGHT VARIABLE:
-POPULATIONS
.(S)=
- 1
. DATA SETt MASTER 1 TOTAL FREQUENCY (N)=
1260l OBSERVATIONS (085) = - 1260;
(
MAXIMUM.LIKELIMOOD ANALYSIS PARAM SUB.-
MATE
- -2' LOG CONVERGENCE ITERATION ITERATION.
LIKELIN00D CRITERION.
0 0
4055.75 1
.1 0-4055.78 0-1 ANALYSIS OF.VARIANCELTABLE-li
-\\
SOURCE DF CHI-SQUARE.
PROB LIKELIHo0D RATIO 4
720.11 0.0001 1
1.
a r
i I
-k NUREG-1414 B-71
! \\ *l
t i.
., j 4
5
~
- f r.-
I e
l-i 1
i s
t 4
?
APPENDIX 6.
l a,
1i J
-v 1,
{
I i
1
.I l -
I l
t l.,
r.
?
h
.I,
.i
(
1 e
}
}
t i
.1,
'i 4
5 NUREG-1414 B-72' L
%.S y
'i-rs
+
>' \\ '.'t %.!,,
a-
0 Nue100r Regulatery CsamiOOi8n'0iSurv0y en
~
Difforing PrefooDisnD1 ViGwo (DFV) and opini8no (DFO)'
and open - Do8r : Palicy ' (CDP).
Chi-Square Significance Tests:
'~
STATISTICS FOR TABLE OF Q1 SY Q3 STATISTIC-
.DF VALUE PROB CHI-SQUARE 9
217.177' 0.000-LIKELIHOOD RATIO CHI-SQUARE 9
187.966 0.000 MANTEL-HAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE 1
170.655 0.000' PHI 0.413 l
CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0.382 CRAMER'S V-0.239 STATISTIC VALUE ASE GAMMA
~0.520
~0.036 RENDALL'S-TAU-B
-0.305 0.024--
STUART'S TAU-C
-0.225 0.019 SOMERS' D C R
-0.360 0.028 SOMERS' D R C
-0.258 0.021 PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.367 0.026 SPEARMAN CORRELATION
-0.336
- 0.026 l
LAMBDA' ASYMMETRIC C R 0.119 0.021 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC-R C 0,000 0.000 LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0,080 0.014 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT C R 0.064 0.009 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C 0.081 0.011 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYi:
0.071 0.010 EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = '.271 l
FREQUENCY MISSING = 11
-i ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERRCR.
RlC MEANS ROW VARIABLE DEPENDENT, ON COLUMN VARIABLE.-
b i
i NUREG-1414 B-73
-]
?j
. gf,.
4>
NuclC0r;Rdgulatcry C:maicciCn'0 Surycy en-H Difforing Prof 000ien31 Vicw3? (DFV)icnd Cpinien3 :(DPC)
'and:Open Door-Policy.(CDP) k
'Ch1-Square Significance <-Tests.
j STATISTICS FOR' TABLE OF Q1 BY,Q4
/
l STATISTIC.
DF VALUE-
...........--.................................... PROB l
l CHI-SQUARE 12 112.012 0.000 LIKELIHOOD RATIO CHI-SQUARE 1,2.
104.629 0.000 MANTEL-HAENSE:".L CHI-SQUARE '
1 82.073-0.000-
)
l.
PHI-0~297-CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0.285' L
CRAMER'S'V-0.171~
l+
' STATISTIC VALUE' ASE GAMMA
-0.439.>
.0.043'
~KENDALL'S TAU-B-
-0.237 0.024~
J
-STUART'S TAU-C
-0.167
-0.0181
-SOMERSD C R~
-0;267.
0.028.
-SOMERS'1D R C
-0.211 0.022~
.j
)
PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.254 0.028 SPEARMAN CORRELATION
-0.257:
0.027 i
LAMBDA' ASYMMETRIC C R
.0.009 0.044+
[
LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC.R C 0.000 0.000 LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0.006 0.028-t l
-UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT C R 0.039 0.007:
1 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C 0.045
.0.009.
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM-0.042 0.008; EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1270 FREQUENCY MISSING = 12 WARNING:
25% OF THE CELLS HAVE EXPECTED COUNTS LESS THAN. 5. CHI-SQUARE MAY.110T BE A VALID TEST.
.ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.
'RlC MEANS ROW: VARIABLE. DEPENDENT'ON: COLUMN VARIABLE.-
L k
1 NUREG-1414 B-74 e
l NuSl' Oar RCgulat8ry Ccanics16n'O Survoy Mn Difforing Prefo00ienal= ViCwo '(DPV) 'Ond Cpiniano (DPO) and Open Door Policy'(ODP)-
Chi-Square-Significance Tests STATISTICS FOR TABLE OF Q1LSY;Q5,
STATISTIC-DF VALUE-PROB-CHI-SQUARE 9
143.123-7.000-LIKELIN00D RATIO CNI-SQUARE
,9' 115.622 0.000 MANTEL-HAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE 1
112.986 0.000 PHI 0.335 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0.318 CRAMER'S V 0.194 i
ASE-
.....................................'VALUT STATISTIC GAMMA
-0.3'9 0.039-
'7 KENDALL'S TAU-B
-0.745' O.025 STUART'S TAU-C
-0. /.7 0
' O.019 i
SOMERS' DC R
-0.272 0.030-
'SOMERS' D'R C
-0.186.
0.021 PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.298
'0.029 l
SPEARMAN CORRELATION
-0;251 0.027-LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R 0.031 0.035 4
LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C 0;000 0.000 LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0.021
- 0.024' i
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT-~C R --
0.037 0.007:
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT.R C 0.050
-0.0Q9 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM
'O.042-0.008 EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1272-FREQUENCY MISSING = 10 k-ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.=
Rjc MEANS ROW VARIABLE. DEPENDENT ON COLUMN VARIABLE.-
d NUREG-1414 -
B-75
~
V
s Nue10ar RCgulotary Commissi6n'0 Surv0y sn.-
Difforing: Pr8f000isn81 ViCWO (DPV)L and OpiniBnO. (DPO)J and open_ Door Policy:(CDP)
Chi-square Significance Tests',
STATISTICS FOR_ TABLE OF-Q1 BY-Q6 STATISTIci DF-VALUE PROB CHI-SQUARE 6
100.205 0.000-
-i LIKELIN000 RATIO CHI-SQUARE 6-99.786 0.000-MANTEL-HAENSEEL CRI-SQUARE
- 1 84.043 0.000 PHI 0.282 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT-0.271 CRAMER'8'V -
O.199 I
I
'1 STATISTIC-VALUE
.ASE-GAMMA
-0.412 0.042 KENDALL'S TAU-B
-0.229-
~ 0.024:
i
'STUART'S TAU-C-
-0.190 0.021 SOMERS' D C R;
-0.270 0f028 SOMERS' D R C
-0.194>
0;021 PEARSON' CORRELATION
-0. 2 5 8 -:
0.026 9
SPEARMAN CORRELATION
--0.252 0.027-l LAMBDA. ASYMMETRIC C R' O.124 10.032 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C 0.000
.0.000 LAMBDA SYMMETRIC-0.083.
0.022
.i UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT--C R 0.037 0.007 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C 0.043
.O.008 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM
.0.040 0.008 4
EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1263 FREQUENCY MISSING = 19
'ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.
RlC MEANS ROW VARIABLE DEPENDENT ON COLUMN VARIABLE.'
i s
l
=
NUREG-1414 B-76 l
k l
,s.
Nucloor' Regulatory Ctaniocien'eiSurvoy-en Dif foring Prefossi8nal: ViGwo - (DPV) : Ond opiniens (DPC)'
and Open Door Policy (ODP)'
I Chi-Square Significance Tests; STATISTICS FOR TABLE OF Q1 BYlQ7 STATISTIC DF VALUE-PROB CHI-SQUARE.
12 123.239 0.000 LIRELIN00D PATIO CHI-SQUARE 12.
107.428 0.000 MANTEL-HAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE
'l 49.755 0.000-I PHI 0.312 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT
- 0.298 l
CRAMER'S V O.180 STATISTIC VALUE ASE.
j GANMA
-0.226 0.044 i
i KENDALL'S TAU-B
-0.136' O.027-STUART'S TAU-C
-0.105 0.021 l
SOMERS' D C R.
-0.169
~0.033
.j SOMERS' D R C
-0.109 0.0S2 PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.198 0.030 SPEARMAN CORRELATION-
-0.156 0.030 i
LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R 0.066 0.018 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C 0.000 0.000 LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0.045 0.012 UNCERTAINTY 2 COEFFICIENT C R 0.031-0.006 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT-R C 0.047 0.009 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM 0.037 0.007 EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE'= 1267 FREQUENCY MISSING = 15 ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.
RlC MEANS ROW VARIABLE DEPENDENT ON COLUMN VARIABLE.'
NUREG-1414 B-77
~
--(
g Nue10ar Regulatery Cranissien'O-Survoy en:
Dif foring Pr@f000ien01 ViGwo - (DPV)L Ond opinicnc' (DPO)
L M Open' Door! Policy CDP);
Chi-Square Significance (Tests 3
STATISTICS FOR TABLE OF'Q1 BY QS STATISTIC DF-VALUE PROB
' CHI-SQUARE
~9 195'522 0.000:
LIRELIN000 RATIO CHI-SQUARE:
9
'173.690 0.000 MANTEL-HAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE 1-148.187-.
0.000 PHI-0'.392~
CONTINGENCY-COEFFICIENT.
O.365 CRAMER'S.V 0.226:
STATISTIC-VALUE.
ASE j
GAMMA
-0.455
.O.037:
RENDALL'S TAU-B
-0.274 0.024-STUART'S TAU-C
-0.214-
,0.019 i
SOMERS' D'C R-
-0.342 0.029 1
SOMERS' D R CL
-0.220!
.0.020 i
'PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.341' O. 0 *. 5 '-
SPEARMAN CORRELATION
--O;310 0. '.# 2 6 -
j LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R 0.019-re.011 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C-0;000 20.000' LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0s013 0.008.
1 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENTJC R:
0.051, 0.007 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT:R C' O.075i 0.011-
-UNCERTAINTY' COEFFICIENT-SYM 0.060 0.009 EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1274 FREQUENCY MISSING = 8 ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.
R]C MEANS ROW VARIABLE DEPENDENT ON COLUMN' VARIABLE.
4 NUREG-1414 B-78
- h. g
_ _ - ---_ - _ _. ~. _ _ _._ _._-_ __.._ -_ _
\\ :^
Nucloor R;gulctery C0am'iccion'0<Survoy,cn-U Diff0 ring Profocciennl-Vicwa (DPV)a cnd opinien3 (DPO) 1
'cnd open'Dorr Policy--(CDP)-
J Chi-Square Significance Tests
~
~~
STATISTICS FDR TABLE-0F-Q1.8Y Q9 STATISTIC DF VALUE PROB-j CHI-SQUARE 12 131.178-0.000 LIKELIHOOD RATIO CHI-SQUARE 12 109.901 0.000 MANTEL-HAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE
'1-58.746-0.000 PHI' O.323
-CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0.307 CRAMER' S "I
'0.187.
STATISTIC VALUE ASE-l GAMMA
-0.326 0.045 KENDALL'S TAU-B
-0.190 0.0271 STUART's-TAU-C
-0.142 0~.020 1
'SOMERS' DC R
-0.225 0.031-.
SOMERSD R C-
').161
-0.023 PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.216' O.030 SPEARMAN CORRELATION
-0.212 0.029 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R 0.080, J0.024 i
LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C 0.000-0.000 LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0.052/
10.015-UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT C R
- 0.035 0,007
-UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C 0.048,
- .0.009 i
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM 0.040' 0,008.
-l EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1257 FREQUENCY MISSING'= 25 ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.
RlC MEANS ROW VARIABLE ' DEPENDENT 'ON COLUMN : VARIABLE.
1 L
?
NUREG-1414 B-79
.r
.. ~.
I
. s.
- NuclOOriRegulOtsry ComaiO0ien'O Survoy
- c'n.
_DiffOring= Pref 00016nal ViOwG (DPV) and' opinien02(DPO):
4
- and Open : Door-l Policy ; (CDP)-
Chi-Square Significance Testa-STATISTICS FOR' TABLE'0F;Q1'BY Q10-STATISU C
- DF-
.VALUEi PROB g
(i CHI-SQUARE:
L6:
-95.289
.0.000-
~ LIKELIN000 RATIO CNI-SQUARE'-
6L 94'.048.
0.000-MANTEL-HAENSEEL-CHI-SQUARE-
'l i
-83.036' O.000~
'0.275-CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0.265
' l!
CRAMER'S V-
'O.194; STATISTIC VALUE-ASEc-GAMMA
~-0.394 0.042 KENDALL's. TAU-B
-0.218
- 0. 02 5 ~.
STUART'S TAU-C
-0.175 0.021 1
SOMERS' D C R
-0.248-0.028-l SOMERS' D R C-
-0.191 ~
0.023.
l PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.256 0.027 l
SPEARMAN CORRELATION-
-0.239 0.028 f
LAMBDA' ASYMMETRIC C R -
,0.119:
0.026 LAMBDA-: ASYMMETRIC R C 0.000-0.000-LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0.076 0.017-s UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT C R 0.037-0.007 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT.R C
- 0. a 41-0.008; 7
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM.
0.039 0.008 1
EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1264 FREQUENCY MISSING = 18-ASE IS TNE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.
RlC MEANS ROW' VARIABLE DEPENDENT ON COLUMN VARIABLE.
i P
1 i
'k A
NUREG-1414L
- B-80 l
~
e NuslOOr Rogu1Atsry CsamiOOien'o Survoy.en Dif f0 ring? Pr8f000isnol-Viswa, (DPV)- Ond opinien0; (DPO) and:Open Door Policy-(ODP)
Chi-Square Significance Tests-
~
STATISTICS FOR TABLE OF Q1-BY Q11
- STATISTIC DF VALUE PROB CHI-SQUARE 12 128.370 0.000.
LIKELIHOOD RATIO CHI-SQUARE 42' 106.717 0.000 MANTEL-HAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE 1
71.593 0.000 PHI-0.319;
- l
-CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0.304 1
CRAMER'S V 0.184 1
- STATISTIC:
VALUE:
ASE GAMMA
-0.334-0.043-KENDALL'S TAU-B
-0.199 0.026 STUART'S TAU-C
' -0.151
'0.020
-~j
.i SOMERS' D C R
-0.241 0.031 SOMERS' D R C
-0.165 0.022 PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.239 0,030-SPEARMAN CORRELATION-
-0.224
'O.029' LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R 0.039!
0.016 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C 0.000' O.000 LAMBDAESYMMETRIC 0.' O J 5
.O.010-UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT.C R-0.'032 0.006
. i UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C 0.046 0.009 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM 0.038-0.008 EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1258-FREQUENCY MISSING = 24 i
ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD: ERROR ~.
RlC MEANS. ROW VARIABLE DEPENDENT ON. COLUMN VARIABLE.
i
- i J
e NUREG-1414 B-81 i
e
t I. 32.
r, 6
)
i
- }
l '.
1 i
)
( '.
.)
e i
o h
4 e
4 0
.c 6
APPENDIX.7..
i 1
1 t
t 9
l l
'. \\-
. e i-l 1
i i
t I
I
.t 1
t i
1
)
3 i
.NUREG-1414-
- B-82 i
I f
')-
r 1.+w m
.g--i 3
e,_
7 +
g e
w
s' w
.. e o-
~
Nucloor R gulatcry CcamiO31cn'O'Survoy on Differing Profo0cio,ml Vicws (DPV) cnd OpinienD (DPC):
cnd op on. Door P31 icy. (CDP).
'j Chi-SquaPe Significance-Tests
l STATISTICS 70R TABLE OF Q2 BY Q1.
l L
STATISTIC DF_
VALUE PROB L
-CHI-SQUARE 30-
- 59.953-0.001 LIKELIN00D RATIO CHI-SQUARE-30-61.133
- 0. 001L L
MANTEL-HAENSZEL CHI-SQUARE
- 11 0.144 0.704i PHI'
.0.217 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0.212 CRAMER'S V
~0.125 STATISTIC VALUE ASE GAMMA 0L020 0.'037 KENDALL'S TAU-B-0.013.
O.024 STUART'S TAU-C 0.011' O.021-SOMERS' D C R
'0.010
.0,018 SOMERS' D R C 0.018J 0.033 PEAKiiON CORRELATION
-0.011 0'.029 SPEARMAN CORRELATION 0.016:
0.029
'l LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R 0.0001 0.000-LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C 0.005 0.006 LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0.004 0.004 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT'C R 0.026
-0.006-
' UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C
-0.011
'0.003 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM 0.015 0.004 EFFECTIVE. SAMPLE SIZE = 1270 FREQUENCY. MISSING = 12 ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.
RlC MEANS ROW. VARIABLE DEPENDENT.ON COLUMN. VARIABLE.
l NUREG-1414 B-83 a:
+
y
==
s Nucloor R3gulOtory CeaniOcisn'.O Survoylcn~
~
- Ditforing'Pr$f0sOi6n01 ViGwcl-(DPV):Ond OPinienG'(DPO):
and Open, Door Policy (CDP).
iChi-Square-Signiticance Tests STATISTICS FOR TABLE'OF-Q2 BY Q3 STATISTIC lDr.-
VALUE PROB J
CNI-SQUARE 30 52.849' O.006,
. LIKELIM00D RATIO CNI-SQUARE 30 50.970
' O.010-MANTE-MAENSEE CMI-SQUARE'
'1 -
6.245 0.012 PHI 0.204
- CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0;200 CRAMER'S'V-0.118 STATISTIC
.VALUE ASE GAMMA
-0.0707
-0'.030-KENDALL'S TAU-B
-0.053'-
0.023^
1. STUART'S TAU-C
-0.053-0.023
- SOMERS' D C R
' -0.046 0.020 SOMERS' D:R C
-0'.061 0.026 PEARSON CORRELATION
-0 '. 07 0 -
~0.028 SPEARMAN CORRELATION
-0.065
'0.028.
LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R 1 0.081 0.028 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C 0.011 O.006--
LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0.042:
0.013:
j UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT C R' O. 017l 0.005-UNCERTAINTY: COEFFICIENT R C.
. 0.009-0.003 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENTLSYMi 0.012 0.003' j
EFFECTIVE' SAMPLE SIZE = 1265'
)
FREQUENCY MISSING-= 17 ASE IS THE' ASYMPTOTIC STANDARDJERROR.
RlC MEANS ROW VARIABLE DEPENDENT-ON COLUMN VARIABLE.
- j i
i NUR3G-1414 B-84
.c 5
M
NuclCar Regulatsry C8amiE0ien's Surv0y 6n>
Dif foring Prsfoooienal ViCw0 (DFV)-. and.opiniens (DPO)..
x and Open Door Policy (CDP). '
Chi-Square Significance Tests:
STATISTICS FOR TABLE OF Q2 BY Q4
.i STATISTIC
.DF VALUE' 1 PROB l
3 CHI-SQUARE
'40 -
71.042-0.002-
.)
LIKELIM0OD RATIO CHI-SQUARE 40:
74.335 0.001 MANTEL-MAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE
.1 9.701-0.002 PHI --
0.237 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0.'231-CRAMER'S V 0.119
.l
+
STATISTIC VALUE ASE GAMMA
-0.116 0.032 KENDALL'S TAU-B
-0.084 0.023 STUART'S TAU-C.
-0.075 0.021 SOMERS' DC R
-0.069a
. 0.019 SOMERS' DR C
-0.101
'0.028 PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.088 0.028-I SPEARMAN CORRELATION
-0.101.
0'.028-LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R 0.074 0.029 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C-0.002
.0.002 LAMBDA SYMMETRIC' O.031'
.O.012
)
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT C R 0.028 0.006 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C 0.013-0.003' UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM 0.018 0.004 EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1264-FREQUENCY MISSING = 18 WARNING:
41% OF THE CELLS HAVE EXPECTED COUNTS LESS THAN 5. CHI-SQUARE MAY NOT'BE:A VALID-TEST.
ASE-IS.THE' ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD-ERROR.
RlC MEANS ROW VARIABLE DEPENDENT ON COLUMN VARIABLE.
NUREG-1414 B-85
s
. Nuclcor R gulat$ry Consissitn'0 Survdy cn -
Dif fCring-Pr3fessien31-ViCw3 (DPV). cnd opinion 3+ (DPO).
1
.and open Door Policy ^(ODP)
Chi-Square 1 Significance Tests o
STATISTIC 8'FOR' TABLE OF.Q2 BY Q5 Lq
-STATISTIC DF
- VALUE PROB CHI-SQUARE 30=
56.444^
'0.002' 0.002 LIKELIN00D RATIO CHI-SQUARE 30
- 57.879 MANTEL-MAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE
- 1-12.401 O.000.
PHI-0.211 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT-0.207-CRAMER'8 Y-0.122 STATISTIC
.VALUE-
'ASE l
q GAMMA
-0.107 0.029;
")
KENDALL'S TAU-B'
-0.083>
- 0.022:
STUART'S TAU-C
-0.085 0.023-SOMERS' D C R
-0.073 0.020 SOMERS' D R C
-0.093 0.025 l
PEARSON1 CORRELATION
-0.059 0.027 4
SPEARMAN CORRELATION
-0.103
'O.028 i
LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R 0.054
- 0.027 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C:
0.000 0.000 l
LAMBDA SYMMETRIC' O.024 L04012 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENTLC R 0.019
-0.005 UNCERTAINTY-COEFFICIENT R C 0.010-
- 0.003 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM 0.013 0'.'003 I
EFFECTIVE SAMPLE,SIIE = 1266 FREQUENCY MISSING =-16' ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.
RlC MEANS ROW VARIABLE' DEPENDENT ON COLUMN-VARIABLE.
j t
]
1 l
NUREG-1414 B-86 7
- M"l:.
" ~.
^
,;~
Nuclocr Regulatcry comaiO31cn'0 Survoy: Cn Difforing ProfCOcisnal ViCw3* (DFV) cnd CpinicnD (DPO);
~
Cnd Open Door P211.y (ODP)-
Chi-Square Significance Tests STATISTICS FOR TABLE OF.Q2 BY Q6 l
l STATISTIC DF.
VALUE~
PROB.
CHI-SQUARE-20 59.176 0.000 L
LIKELIHOOD RATIO CHI-SQUARE J20 58.766:
0.000 l
MANTEL-HAENSEEL-CHI-SQUARE L'
- 11.805 0.001
- PHI, 0.217.
CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0.212 CRAMER'S V 0.153 STATISTIC VALUE ASE--
0.115-0.030.
GAMMA 0.087-0.023 KENDALL'S TAU-B 0.098 0.026-STUART'S TAU-C 0.075-0.020 SOMERS'---D C R 0.101.
O'026 SOM"RS' DR C 0.097 0.028 y
P' ARSON CORRELATION 0.107 0.028>
',PEARMAN CORRELATION LAMBDA ASYMM2TRIC.C R 0.1011 0.027 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C' O.002 0.014-LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0.046'-
0.017-UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT C R
.0.022 0.006' UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C 0.010-
.0.003 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICII:NT SYM 0.014 0.004 EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE =-1257
' FREQUENCY MISSING = 25 ASEJIS THE ASYMPTOTIC' STANDARD' ERROR.
RlC MEANS ROW VARIABLE' DEPENDENT ON COLUMN VARIABLE.
i i
I-i NUREG-1414 B ;
9
,,',-wA
~ ~ +,
e--.e--se n
-..,a enu
,.----,e---
e,,--
r-v,,v.,-,--w--
.,-wome
,-w
~
e----
en 1 a
1 e
y v.
,e e-
J
.NuS10ar:RegulOtery CommiOOlen'a'Surv0y en-
~
- 'v DiffGringi Prefo0016nol Views (Di!V)qand Opini8no'(DPO) and:Open Door Policyc(CDP)-
~. Chi-square Significance Tests-o STATISTICS FOR-TABLE OF Q2 SY Q7 STATISTIC DF' VALUE PROB-;
j 4
CNI-SQUARE, 40 68.612-0.003 LINELIN00DJRATIO-CHI-SQUARE l 40 ' L 68'.083 0.004 3
MAdTEL-HAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE
- 1-1.751 0.186 PHI 0.233 CONTINGENCY _ COEFFICIENT O.227
'l CRAMER'S V 0.-117-STATISTIC VALUE.
'ASE GAMMA 0.034.
O.028 RENDALL'S TAU-B 0.027
-0.022 1
STUART'S TAU-C 0.027 0.022 SOMERS'DClR 0.025-
- 0.020 SOMERS' D.R;G-0.030 0.024 l j PEARSON CORRELATION-0.037:
0.028
SPEARMAN CORRELATION 0.035'
-0.028 i
LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R 0.046 0.022-
~
4 LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C-0.010:
0.014 LAMBDA, SYMMETRIC 0.026 0.015 y
3 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT C R
'O.020 0;005-UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C 0.012 0.003 1
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM.
0.015 0.004-EFFECTIVE' SAMPLE SIZE = 1261 FREQUENCY MISSING = 21.
i WARNING:
21% OF THE CELLS HAVE' EXPECTED COUNTS LESS THAN 5. CHI-SQUARE MAY NOT'BE A: VALID TEST.
ASE IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD-ERROR.
R]C MEANS' ROW VARIABLE DEPENDENT ON COLUMN VARIABLE.
1 t'
(
1 NUREG-1414-B-88 1
s
's
't-
. o ;"
o Muslocr R:gulatory Ccmaiccien'a-Survoy on.
' Dif fCring Pr$f000 ion 21 ViGw3L (DPV) ond - opinions-. (DPC),
)
cnd Open-Door Policy (ODP)
Chi-Square Significance Tests.
STATISTICS FOR TABLE OF Q2 BY QS
]
. STATISTIC DF VALUE-PROB CHI-SQUARE-30 41.782 0.075
.LINELIHOOD RATIO CHI-SQUARE 30.
42.376 0.066 i
MANTEL-HAENSEEL. CHI-SQUARE 1
4.504' O.034 PHI 0.182-c CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0.179-l CRAMER'S'V 0.105 STATISTIC VALUE ASE l~
GAMMA
-0.057
'O.028-KENDALL'S TAU-B
.-0.045 0.022'.
STUART'S TAU-C.
-0.048 0.0241 4
SOMERS' D C R
-0.042 0.020 SOMERS' DR C.
-0.0504
'0.024 PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.060.
-0.028' p
-SPEARMAN' CORRELATION
-0.057 0.028' l
LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R
- 0. 02 3;.,
0.016 I
LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC-R C 0.000 0.000 LAMBDA SYMMETRIC-0.011' O.007 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT C R 0.012 0.004 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C 0.007-0.002
~
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYM 0.009' O.003.
EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1268 FREQUENCY MISSING = 14 ASE'IS THE ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.
4
.RlC MEANS. ROW VARIABLE' DEPENDENT ON COLUMN VARIABLE.-
J l
1 1
l NUREG-1414 B-89
=l
s Nucloor Regulctcry ChaaiOcien'0!Survcy en
. DiffCring PrctcOciCn31 View 3- (DPV): cnd' opinicn1L (DPO):
and open Door Policy (CDP)-
-Chi-Square' Significance Tests
-STATISTICS-FOR' TABLE OF-Q2 BY Q9-
~
STATISTIC DF VALUE.
- PROB CHI-SQUARE 40
. 51. 213 L-0.110 1
LIKELIHOOD-RATIC CHI-SQUARE' 40-53.263
- 0.078 MANTEL-HAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE
- 1 3.253-.
. 0.071 PHI 0.202-CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT
.O.198 CRAMER'S.V:
0.101
!3
' STATISTIC.
VALUE=
-ASE:
a GAMMA
-0.069
" 0.030.
.KENDALL'S TAU-B
-0.053 0.023 STUART'S TAU-C
-0.050 0.022
+
'SOMERS' D C R
-0.046'
- 0.020 SOMERS' D R C
-0.061--
0.027
[
PEARSON CORRELATION'.
-0.051 0'029.
' SPEARMAN-CORRELATION
-0.065; t
. O.029' LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R
'O.016, 0.011 l
LAMBDA = ASYMMETRIC.R C 0.002:
io.004:
LAMBDA SYMMETRIC
O.008
. 0.005' L
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT 'C R 0.017-0.004~
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R CL 0.010 0.002 UNCERTAINTY-COEFFICIENT SYM
- 0. 012 ~-
0.003.
EFFECTIVE SAMPLE: SIZE = 1251 FREQUENCY MISSING = 31 WARNING:
30% OF THE CELLS.HAVE EXPECTED COUNTS'LESS THAN 5. CHI-SQUARE MAY:NOT BE'A' VALID TEST.
1' ASE IS THE' ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR'.?
+
Rl.C MEANS ROW' VARIABLE, DEPENDENT ON: COLUMN VARIABLE.
'I Y
T
.[
4 NUREG-1414 B-90
.,l 1
i a n
.a
,,-,m,og-e
<,, N - a
~~
m s s-d
-~
-. - -... -. - -.. ~. -.
Nunicar R:gulctcry C maiSDicn'o Surycy en.
DiffCring Profcasien31 Vicws (DFV)-. Cnd opinion 3- (DPO)'-
1 l
and open.-Door Policy (CDM
' Chi-Square Significance Tests J
l l
STATISTICS FOR TABLE DF Q2'BY.Q10 i
STATISTIC-DF VALUE-1 PROB '
CHI-SQUARE 20 36.465' O.014' LIKELI!io0D. RATIC CNI-SQUARE 2,0 37.249-
- 0.011 L
MANTEL-HAENSEEL CNI-SQUARE 1-7.517 3.006
(
PHI 0.170 L
CONTINGENCY C-) EFFICIENT 0.168 CRAMER'S V 0.120 STATISTIC VALUE-ASE-GAMMA
-0.090 0.032
=!
XENDALL'5: TAU-B
-0.066 0.023 STUART'S TAU-C.
-0.072
' O.025 SOMERS' ' DC R
-0'055 0.019 SOMERS' DR C
-0.0791 0.028' PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.077 0.028-I SPEARMAN CORRELATION
-0.080
- 0.028.
LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R
=0.026 0.022-LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C 0.000 0.000-
)
LAMBDA SYMMETRIC 0.0111 0.009 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT'C R
-0.015
> 0.005.
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT-R C 0.007
- 0.002 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT SYN' O.009 0.003 f
EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1258.
FREQUENCY MISSING = 24 ASE-IS THE ASYMPTOTIC'. STANDARD ERROR.
RlC MEANS ROW VARIABLE DEPENDENT ON-COLUMN VARIABLE.-
1 j
q l
NUREG-1414 B-91 8
-..,w-.m..
v.
y
-e
.. + =-.
re-+--
-8+
Y
,; g _
. a,-
-NuclOOr.Regulat@ry ComaiOOien'O Surv0y en.
DiffOring_ Pref 000isn21'ViGwa (DPV). cad'opini8no;(DPO)-
and.Open. Door Policy-(ODP)
Chi-Square Significance Testat STATISTICS FOR TABLE 0F Q2 BY Q11-
-STATISTIC DF VALUE:
PROB' CNI-5QUARE 40-64.832--
0.008-LIKELIN00D RATIO CHI-SQUARE 40 65.909
. 0. 006 --
MAYPEL-HAENSEEL CHI-SQUARE-
-*1-3.238 0.072 PA' I 0.228 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT.
0.222
-l i a CRAMER'S V 0.114-STATISTIC VALUE'
~ASE I
GAMMA
-0.066 0.028 KINDALL'8 TAU-B-
-0;0511 0.022 STUART'S TAU-C
-0.049 0.021 SOMERS' D C R
-0.045 0.019 I
SOMERSD R C
-0.058:
0.025 PEARSON CORRELATION
-0.051:
0.028 SPEARMAN CORRELATION
-0.064' 0.028' LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC C R-
,0.000
- o,000-LAMBDA ASYMMETRIC R C 0.000 o,ooo
-l LAMBDA SYMMETRIC o,000
- o,ogo:
. j l\\
UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT C R 0.020 0;005 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT R C.
0.012 0.003 UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT S7M
.0.015 0.004 EFFECTIVE SAMPLE SIZE = 1252 j
FREQUENCY MISSING = 30 WARNING:
21% OF THE CELLSHAVE EXPECTED COUNTS'LESS:
THAN 5., CHI-SQUARE'MAY-NOT'BE A VALID TEST.
ASE'IS THE: ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERROR.-
RlC MEANS~ ROW VARIABLE DEPENDENT:ON COLUMN VARIABLE.
k i
l
- l NUREG-1414 B-92 l
t
f
..=.,
4 1
a l
1 f
- I f
.(,
u 4
' (
APPENDIX 8.
i 8
k I
y
?
l l
I 1
. 1 NUREG-1414' B-93 k
O li
..y.-
..,,w e-
,-cry
s
.s NuclOor R29ulatery CsamiOGi8n'0 Surv0y en' Dif foring - Prefo0016nal ViOw0 (DPV) Ond Cpinion0 (DPO)
' and Open: Door Policy (CDP)
L List of All Responses to the Open-Ended Question Fara Q6es Additionai' Idontification other.
Comments Number Reason 1
VIEWED NEGATIVELY BY YOUR SUPERVISORS-53 IT IS NOT THE " NAVY" WAY
.62 I AN IGNORANT ABOUT THE PROCESS 76 WASTE OF TIME 139 NOT'ME PERSONALLY BUT MOST EMPLOYEES FEEL THAT WAY
'l 150' POLICY HANDED DOWN FM HQ AND IS NOT TO BE QUESTION 169 HAVE NOT.TRIED IT More Comments 197 YOU WOULD BE VIEWED NEGATIVELY BY YOUR' SUPERVISOR 218
-VIEWED NEGATIVELY BY YOUR SUPERVISORS 220 THE SUPERVISORS WHO-DISAGREE W DP0 ARF,THE INDIVID More Comments 309' HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS 313 DON'T KNOW IF IT IS EFFECTIVE 324 HAVE No KNOWLEDGE 352 REVIEW PANEL MAY NOT BE TECH QUALIFIED More comments 362 NOT AWARE OF THE POLICY 392 HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE More Comments 416 OTHER 448 PROC. PROCESS INDICATES PROB.-W/ COMMUNICATION B/W More Comments 474 OPINIONS SHLD BE PRT.OF DENOCRATIC PROCESS More Comments 489 NOT FAMILIAR WITH PROCESS 494 SEE QUESTION 6; ANSWERED DON'T KNOW 497 SUPERVISORS WILL DO ANYTHING-TO AVOID SUBMISSION More Comments 506 ASSUME DIFF. ARE PROF.; DIFF. ARE SUBJECTIVE More Comments 511 FOSTERS. DEFENSIVENESS; TOO CUMBERSOME More Comments 514 DPV/DPOPROCESS NOT-INTENDED FOR DIFF. OPINIONS More Comments i
551 NOT INVOLVED IN PROCESS-PERSONALLY a
553 MEN AS REVIEWERS; REVIEWERS DN'T UNDERSTAND PROB.
More Comments i
567 OBSERVED ONCE BY ANOTHER EMPLOYEE 680 DON'T KNOW More Comments i
686 VIEWED NEGATIVELY BY NRC MANAGEMENT More CommenM 709 I JUST DON'T.KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE IT IS More. Comments 728 OFFERS EFFECTIVE MEANS I WOULDN'T Do IT BECAUSE OF More Comments-729 DEPENDS ON ISSUE AND STAFF PERCEPTION OF PRIOR-More Comments 730 PATH TO SUCCESS; SUPPORT BOSS WITHOUT ARGUEMENT More Comments-742 CONSIDERED TROUBLENAKER. NRC FULL OF. POLITICS More Comments 749 THOSE THAT HAVE SUBMITTED HAVE NEG IMAGE OF SYSTEM More Comments 758 MANAGERS VIEW DPV/DPO NEGATIVELY More Comments 764 ALL ABOVE-IT MAKES YOUR MGNT UNHAPPY & DISTRUSTFUL More Comments.
783 PREDOMINANTLY D, POSSIBLY A & C More Comments 789 DEPENDS ON RESULTS (EFFECTIVENESS) 798 AT THE LOWER MANAGEMENT LEVELS More Comments 800 IT WOULD BE VIEWED NEGATIVELY BY PEERS & MGNT 817 THERE IS ALWAYS GOING'TO BE ILL FEELINGS.& ACTION 832 TROOPS BELIEVE NEGATIVE CONNOTATION. EXISTS More Comments 853 IT IS VIEWED AS-SUICIDAL TO'YOUR CAREER More Comments
~
859 COULD BE VIEWED NEGATIVELY BY SUPERVISORS More comments 865 IF YOU DO NOT AGREE MANAG FEELS NOT A TEAM More Comments 904 I NEVER USED IT 933 DIFFERING VIEWS ARE NOT TOLERATED 953 DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE PROCESS NUREG-1414 B-94
/
v e.
Musloor Regulatcry Ctaniocicn'o Survoy en Differing Profoccien31 Vicws (DPV) Ond opiniens. (DPO) and Open Door Policy (CDP) l List of:All Responses to the-Open-Ended Question L Fcra 06et Additional
' Identification other comments Number-Reason l
962 THE MANAGEMENT CLIMATE EXPRESSED OUTSIDE OF
- More. Comments 968 HAVE NOT: PUT TO TEST 995 NEVER PROCESSED ONE,8UT C WOULD BE CONSIDERED More Comments i
1032 THE GENERAL ATTITUTE OF NRC M'ANAGEMENT TO DIFFERE More. Comments 1079 NEED MORE TRAINING 1098 MY PERCEPTION IS REPRISAL IS PORTHCOMING 1104 OTHER PEOPLE MAVE STATED.B & D 1130 REGION HAS IT'S OWN DP0 PROCEDURES, ETC.
More comments
)
1137 TOLD BY MGMT ON' SEPARATE ISSUES WHEN< DISCUSSING US More Comments j
1156 ALL MANAGERS MUST BE' CONVINCED THAT A FILING'BY More Comments 1170 SUBMITTING UP CHAIN NOULD LIKELY BE DISCOURAGED i
1180 NRC HAS No ONE OVERSEEING NRC MGMT TO ASSURE PROC More Comments 1185 MGMT DOESN'T TOLERATE NON-TEAM PLAYERS, EXPECTED T More Comments 1206 NOT EXPECT IMM. REPRISAL, WORRY LESS APPARENT REP. More Comments 1223-YOU'WOULD BE VIEWED NEGATIVELY.BY MANAGEMENT
- More Comments 1224 DON'T SEE PROCESS BEING USED, ETC.
More Comments 1232 NOT IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO USE DPV/DPO PROCESS.
1246 NEEDS MORE EXPLANATION.AS TO HOW IT WORKS 1249 WROTE DPV, BUT No REPLY More Comments 1255 EXPERIENCED REPRISAL ' AND WITNESSED IT' More Comments 1272 RETRIBUTION 1282 DON'T KNOW NEVER USED IT BEFORE i
}
l NUREG-1414 B-95
_...,.,,,.w--w w-em I -
,ww-4
--W"w-*$
---Yf-*
P
'r*
w
T Pr y--WW e
e-w e.w-e e-ww.-
-r wre y
1
. g:
.V b
.1 i.
1; 1'
r 1
i I.
l APPENDIX 9.
l i
i e
9 I
\\
s l
~
=
- NUREG-1414 B-96
- l a is F'
M,'
1 Mu31Ccr Regulattry cosmiccicn'o surysy cn.
Diffcring Pr2fcssional Vicw3' (DFV) Cnd Opinitns (DPC) l and Open Door P311cy (CDP)-
List of All Rowpondents Mho Added Additional comments Form
-Admitional i
Identification comments j
4 Muaber 2
l
.3 Mora Comments 111 More Comments t
144 More Comments l
169 Mdre Comments l
'172 More Commenta j
i 220 More Comments 233 More Comments
-l 251 More Comments i
288 More Comments 316 More Comments 1
320
.More Comments 1
321 More Comments 326 More Comments 1
341 More Comments l
352 More Comments 345 More Comments-369 More Comments I
392 More Comments e
1 406 More Comments 448 More Comments 474 More Comments 487 More Comments 491 More Comments 497 More Comments 506 More Comments 511 More Comments
+
514 More Comments-
$22 More' Comments-528 More Comments l
535 More Comments 538 More Comments 546-More Comments 553 More Comments 555 More Comments 651 More Comments 672-More Comments C79 More Comments t
680 More Comments-686.
More Comments 709 More Comments 715 More comments 728 More Comments 729 More Comments 730 here Comments 737 More Comments 739 More Comments 742 More Comments s
749 More Comments 754~
More Comments.
l 756 More Comments NUREG-1414-B l L
-l 1
l Nu31oor RegulOtCry CeamiOOien's Surv0y On DiffCring Pr$f00sienal Views-(DFV) and Opiniens (DPO) and open Door Policy (00P)
- . sat of All Respondents Mho Added Additional Comments Fora Additional Identification-Comments Number 758 More Comments 764 More Comments 782 More Comments 783 Mdre Comments 787 More Commente 788 More Ceements 798 More Comments 799 More Comments 818 More; comments 830 More Comments 832 More comments 833 More Comments 834 More Comments 840 More Comments 853
'More Comments 859 More Comments-I 865 More Comments 902 More Comments 929 More Comments 962 More Comments 967 More Comments 972 More Comments 987 More Comments-995 More Co m nts 1030 More Couments 1032 More Comments 1035' More ccaments 1096 More Comments 1128 More Conseno 1130 More Comments 1137 Nore Comments
'1147 More Coaxmats 1156 More CoJoents-1158 More Comments:
1169 More Ccaments 1180 More Casaente 1185 More Comments 1200 More Comments 1206 More Comm6nts 1223 More Comments 1224 More C0 aments 1242 Nort: Comments 1249
'More Comments 1255 More Comments 9
NUREG-1414 B-98
m i
= w i
4 APPENDIX C-INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND RESULTS 9
4 4
l
. I
g'
~ %;
r t
i 1 '
1 s s t
4 9
e e
O' 9
)
i APPENDIX C J
INTERVIEWS WITH REGION Ale 0FFICE REVIEW PANEL CHAIRPERSONS PURPOSE AND SCOPE To assess the overall effectiveness of the Differing-Professional Views (DPV)
{
and Differing Professional Opinions (DPO) process, tho Panel interviewed the f
nine Office and Region Standing Review Panel Chairpersens, to ascertain the level of DPV/DP0 activity since the last revision of Manual Chapter 4125. The -
interviews were designed to gain insights on how wr,11 the process was working, how it could be improved, and to determine if any individuals using the DPV/DP0 process were given recognition.
.i The Special Review Panel identified a total of seven DPV/DPO-submit +als which have been received since the last Special Review Panel mJeting. Of these,'one submittal involved an Investigatory matter and another.was submitted late in
'the Panel's proceedings; therefore, interviews were not conducted with the submitters of these two submittals. Three of the seven submittals are still
~
under review and were not considered for awards by the Special Review Panel.
In summary, the status of the seven submittals is as follows: one was submitted anonymously ano was considered using the DPV process; two were considered on the basis of the DPV process; two were considered as DPVs'and are now being addressed as DP0s; one is being handled directly as a DP0 and was not
' reviewed as a DPV; and, one is currently being considered as a DPV. _
Prior to the interviews, the Panel unanimously agreed that it was not in the i
Panel's charter to get involved with the substance of, nor intervene in, the processing of any of the individual DPVs or DP0s discussed.
The questions asked during each interview were as follows:.
1.
Have any DPVs been brought to your attention since September 30, 1988?
If so, how many?
2.
How many,' if any, were not resolved as DPVs and therefore, were or are being processed as DP0s?
a NUREG-1414-C-1 l
i r
r l
i 3.
How easy was the process to use?
4.
Did the procedures allow the issue to be handled in a timely and effective manner?
5.
What suggestions or comments do you have to make the DPV/DP0 program more effective o:' better understood?
6.
Did the Office give any recognition to any individuals using the DPV/DP0 process?
~
SUMMARY
.0F RESPONSES i
l 1.
Have any DPVs been brought to your attention since September 30, 19887 If so how many?
Five of the nine representatives re)orted no DPV activity since September 30, 1988. TFree stated t1at they had one DPV brought to their t
attention, and one rept tsentative stated that two were brought to his attention.
2.
How many, if any, were not resolved as DPVs and, therefore, were or are being processed as DP0s.
l Seven representatives reported no DP0 activity. Two representatives reportedunresolvedDPVsthatwerebeingV.)
addressed as DP0s.
(An additional DP0 was not addressed as a D 3.
How easy was the process to use?
Five representatives had no comment in response to this question as they had little or no experience using the process. The other four representatives stated that they believed the process worked well.
7 4.
Did the procedures allow the issue to be handled in a timely and effective manner?
Five of the nine representatives had no comment because they did not have first hand experience with the procedures. The remainino four said that the procedures allowed the issue to be han(led in a timely and effective manner. One representative further added that the new procedures were much better than the old. Nevertheless, one 3
representative commented that his organization was unable to stay'within
)
the prescribed time frames due to scheduling difficulties.
]
E NUREG-1414 C-2 r
9 i
h
. ~ - -.
\\
t l
i 5.
.What suggestions or comments do you have to make the DPV/DP0 program more effective or better understood?
m Four of the representatives did not offer any suggestions or comments to make the DPV/DP0 program more effective or better understood. Three 1
representatives said that it was a good process; two specifically i
mentioned the informal process as being a good feature. One representative pointed out that the difference between a DPV and a DPO.
)
is unclear.
6.
Did the office give any recognition to any individuels using the DPV/DP0 process?
d All nine representatives responded that no special recognition was given to individuals using the DPV/DP0 process because either there were no DPVs/DP0s filed or because specific recognition was not considered l
appropriate in the cases in which they participated.
j i
i 1
4 a
NUREG-1414 C-3
. i e
[..
o L\\
4 INTERVIEWS WITH Ile!V100ALS WHO FILED DPVS OR DP05 PURPOSE AND SCOPE To assess the overall effectiveness of the DPV/DP0 process, the Panel interviewed submitters of DPVs/DP0s. There was one submittal that the Panel' was unable to pursue because it was submitted anonymously. Additionally, of the remaining submitters, one individual declined to be interviewed; two submittals involved the same individual; and, one submittal had not yet 'een v
processed. Thus, a total of three individuals were interviewed.
Prior to the interviews, once again the Panel agreed that it was not in the Panel's charter to get involved with the substance of..nor intervene in the processing of, any of the individual DPVs or DP0s discussed.
The questions asked during each interview were as follows:
1.
How did you first come to know of and later become involved with the DPV/DP0 process?
I 2.
Did the procedures allow the issue to be handled in a timely / effective manner?
3.
How easy / difficult was it to find this information?
4.
Once you found it, how easy was the chapter to understand?.
j 5.
Do you believe the informal DPV process has been helpful in considering l
a differing opinion?
l 6.
What suggestions or comments do you have to improve the DPV/DP0 program?
j 7.
Prior to participating in the process, what was your view of the organizational climate for submitting a DPO?
-and now, after going through it, how would you describe the organizational climate of the agency?
t 8.
Is there anything else you would like to discuss with the Panel?
l NUREG-1414 C-4 g
I
=
=,
wu
c_
/
SUMARY OF RESPONSES 1.
How did you first come to know of and later become involved with the DPV/DP0 process?
One intervieuee stated that he was not initially aware of the DPV/DP0 option. After attempts to resolve the issue with appropriate management, he was advised to utilize the DPV/DP0 option rather than to communicate directly to the Commissioners, which he had considered doing. This individual commented that such an important option should be better publicized. Another interviewee became aware of the Open Door and DP0 policy in the early 1980s. He was working at a plant and aired some concerns that were addressed through the DP0 process. He eventually provided testimony to Congress about the issue. He feels that use of the DP0 option hurt his career and that others did not use the DP0 pvlicy because it would hurt their careers. The third interviewee did not respond to this question.
2.
Did the procedures allow the issue to be handled in a timely / effective manner?
One interviewee said the process was not carried out in a timely or effective manner. This submitter also commented that DP0 procedures were not followed and the DP0 Review Panel did not fully address the issues raised. Another stated that although the paperwork may be considered accompitshed in a timely manner, the implementation of the 1
actions committed to in order to correct the conditions expressed in the DPV have not been accomplished in a timely manner. The third l
interviewee stated that the DPV process effectively addressed his concerns in a timely and effective manner.
3.
How easy / difficult was it to find this information?_
One interviewee stated that guidance was readily available. Another stated that is was easy to find the Manual Chapter. The third 3
interviewee did not answer the question.
4.
Once you found it, how easy was the chapter to understand?
One interviewee stated that it was not all that easy to understand.
Another stated that the guidance is easy to understand, but was not sure that the requirements for the written DPV statement were necessary. The third interviewee stated that he had a problem differentiating between a DPV and a DP0; the rest was easily understood and applied.
5.
Do you believe the informal DPV process has been helpful in considering a differing opinion?
f One interviewee stated that the informal DPV process is easier to use and more helpful; however, he felt DPV/DP0 submitters must still deal NUREG-1414 C-5 i
- =, -
& e
.s.<
w
.e
I 1/
t 4
i with the same people who made the original decisions with which the DPV
~ -
I takes issue, particularly in the Regions. The other two stated that the informal DPV process is somewhat helpful, but the difference between a l
DPV and a DP0 is still unclear.
6.
What suggestions or comments do you have to improve the DPV/DP0 program?
One interviewee stated that the DPV/DP0 process should be a very low key process. He felt that the review process should be kept out of the
}
Regions if possible because in the Regions the people involved with the original agency decisions are the same people wie will review and contribute to the decision on the DPV. Thfs interviewee also stated that management =should not only process the DPV paperwork but take l
timely action to' implement the actions resulting from the DPV.
Another interviewee stated that the agency's organizational culture makes managers reluctant to recognize or admit mistakes and thus, there is a predisposition on the part of the agency to find in favor of the established agr.ncy position. He felt that such an organizational culturn puts '.he careers of DPV/DP0 submitters at great risk and that in order for the DP0 p scess to work. this must change. The third interviewee br.d no umments or suggestions.
7.
Prior to participating in the process what was your. view of the organizational climate for submitting a DPO?
One interviewee stated that filing a DPV/DP0 is very detrimental to one's career.
It is like " cutting your own throat." The younger employees and the employees who believe that they may have a bright future in the sgency see the consequences of filing a DPV/DPO-and will not file one. Another stated that filing a DPV/DP0 is not in an employee's best interest, and that SES bonuses are geared to reward
" good troops" not " boat rockers." The third interviewee stated that others advised him that the organizational climate is'such that filing a DPV/DP0 was a great career risk. However, the interviewee stated that he does not believe this to be true.
-and.10w, after eing through it, how would you describe the organizational e imate of the agency?
l One interviewee-indicated he has suffered as a result of a prior experience with the DP0 process which included an attempt to remove him.
i from his position. With regard to a more recent submittal, the interviewee believes the organization and climate has, improved but believes that his prospects within the Agency are now very limited due to the first submittal. The other two interviewees made no additional comment with regard to this part of this question.
NUREG-1414 C-6 i
L e
...e yr.
.._~.,..,. - -, -.
~-,.-,.,.y..
o 8.
Is there anything else you would like to discuss with the Panel?
One interviewee stated that the agency should take steps to eliminate the stigma which results from filing a DPV/DPO. He stated that even the word 'DM" has a bad connotation. The interviewee indicated that he is not sure how to improve the situation but suggested that it is probably
" human nature" for managers not to want DPVs/DP0s filed within their organizations.
Another interviewee was unclear. about the various alternatives. He believed that there is a broad perception in NRC that filing a DP0 is a last resort and that the range of options between normal employee /
management communications and the DPV/DP0 process had not been clearly communicated. The interviewee believed it is important that each employee understand all available means for communicating a differing viewpoint.
The third interviewee stated that he was never informed of.the right of a DPV/DP0 submitter to recommend a member to sit on the DPV Review Panel.
In addition, in this case the DPV Review Panel relied heavily on input from individuals who were involved in develosing the NRC policies which the DPV called into question. Thus, tie review process was not considered independent from the original decision.,And finally, the submitter felt that a very important and substantive part of this DPV was ignored. This DPV/DP0 continues under review and a final decision on its disposition has not yet been made.
l l
l 1
NUREG-1414 C-7 1
o i
APPENDIX D' E
MANUAL CHAPTER 4125, AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 30, 1988 1
.i 1
\\
+
l 3
I 1
l I
t t
b 5
l i
e
1
' i i
i i
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i-NRC MANUAL Volume: 4000 Personnel Part : 4100 Federal OP t
CHAPTER 4125 OlFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS 4125 01 COVERAGE i
This chapter' and its apDendix cover NRC policy, objectives, proceoures.
l
. responsibilities, and other basic recuirements ano definitions establishoo to 1
provide for the expression and resolution of differing professional views or l
opinions concerning matters related to the agency's mission.
l Issues that do not qualify as differing professional views or opinions inctuce those that are or could have been appropriately addressed under grievance procedures or under other personnel appeal procedures, or are otherwise spe -
i cifically governed by law or government-wide regulation; issues that are sun-
. i i
ject to collective bargaining; issues involving allegations. of.' wrongdoing i
i that are more appropriately addressed by the Office of inspector and Auditor or the Office of Investigations; issues that are deemed to be frivolous' or ctherwise not in acecrdance with the policy underlying these ' proc 6dures; =
and issues raised by an employee that already have been considereo, addressed or rejecteo pursuant to thO chapter absent ' significant new j
information.
4125-02 POLICY AND CBJECTIVES i
l An informal as well as. a formal process for considering the differing pro-j fossional views of employees is established for issues directly related. to the mission of the NRC. Issues raised through the - Informal process -are l
i reviewed within the Office or Region having responsibility for the issue.
Although the informal process may app 6ar to be structured, it is intenced to be a vehicle for the prompt, non-confrontational consideration of issues by an impartial review panel, independent of an employee's direct supervisors, with a minimum of-documentation. If the employee is not satisfied with the l
disposition of the issue throuch the informal process, he/she may ; file a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) with the EDO if working in an office p
reporting to the EDO,- or with the Commission if working in an office reporting to the Commission. If an issue is submitted directly to the EDO or Commission, it is first remanded to the appropriate Office for review through the informal process before action is taken through the formal process.
021 Polley. - It Js the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ano the responsibility of all NRC rupervisory and managerial. personnel to maintain a working environment ; hat encourages employees to make - known their best i
professional judgments even though they may differ from - a' prevailing staff l-view, disagree with a management decision or policy position, or take issue-1-
Accreved: Sootember 30.-1988 NUREG-1414 0-1 T
.m
.. -m.
-..-.,,-.-,,y..,
,.w_r-n,.-,-.-
~3,,
--g,
, +,, -
,.m.,
.----._-.___-,---.__.m______________A m
i i
1 i
NRC 4125 022 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS i
l with proposed or establishec agency practices.
Each differing professional view of an NRC employee will be evaluated on its own merit.
It is not only the right but the duty.of all NRC employees, including man-agers, to mske known their best professional judgments on any matter relating to the mission of the agency. Moreover, both the general public and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission benefit when the agency seriously considers NRC employees' differing professional views that relate to.the agency's mission. This policy is intended to assure that all employees have the opper-tunity to express differing professional views in good faith, to have these views heard and considered by NRC management, and to be protected against retaliation in any form.
022 Objectives.
a.
To establish an informal process for expressing differing p ro-fessional views and a formal precess for expressing DPCs.
l 4
b.
To provide recognition to the originators of differing professional views or opinions if they contribute significantl) to acnieving the agency's mission,
c.
To provide for periodic assessment, as necessary, to ensure that implementation of these procedures accomplishes the statec objec-tives and to recommend appropriate changes.
4125-03 RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES t
031 The Commission:
a.
Refers DPCs to the appropriate Office Director or Regional Admin-i istrator for review if they have not gone through the informal review process.
db.
Utilizes the appropriate qualified sources inside or outside the l
NRC to assist in reviewing the DPO.
/c.
Determines the disposition of issues submitted to.the Commission as OPCs. Such disposition includes rejection of matters which do not qualify as DPos, as stated in 4125 01, or as defined in 041 of this j
chapter.
q'd.
Provides the originator or the manager who forwarded a DPO with a 1
disposition and rationale for that disposition.
To reduce the acministrative burden and resource expenditures, t
maintains the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an l
accurate record of the formal proceedings.' Sends all completed DPO case files to the Office of Personnel, f.
Periodically reviews and modifies as necessary the informal and
\\l formal processes for resolving differing professional views and opinions based on recommendations of the EDO and the DPO Special Review Panel.
Approved: September 30, 1968 NUREG-1414 D-2
-w-,,,-.,,,s,,,--_--9, y-y.
-ww,. _,. _ -.,y 9
3
-e.-..,
m -.-
___._____-___-__mm____.__,_._.___._.__s a
,wy
.,y
s I.
l r
i DlFFERING PROFES$10NAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS N R C-4125-032 032 The Executive Direett or Operations (EDOi:
f a.
Refers DPOs to the appropriate Office Director or Regional Admin-i istrator for review if they have not gone through the informal review procese.
b.
Utilizes the appropriate quallfled sources inside or outside the NRC to assist in reviewing the DPO.
c.
Determines the disposition of issues submitted to the EDO as DPos.
Such disposition includes rejection of matters which do not qualify as a DPO, as stated in 4125 01, or as defined in 041 of this
- chapter, d.
Provides the criginator or the manager who forwardec a DFO with a disposition anc a rationale for that disposition.
i e.
To reduce the administrative burdens and resource expenoiture, maintains only the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record of the formal proceedings. Sends all completed DPO case files to the Office of Personnel, f.
Periodically appoints members, as necessary, to a DPO Special Review Panel after consulta'.lon with the Chairman, g.
Reviews the report of the DPO Special Review Panel and makes ree-ommendations to the Commission as necessary.
033 Directors of AEOD. NMSS. NRR. RES. OSP and Recional Acministrators:
a.
Annually appoint a Standing Review Panel for differing professional views within their respective Offices or Regions.
b.
Refer all differing professional views and opinions received to the Office or Region Standing Review Panel for detailed review, c.
Determine the disposition of issues submitted as differing profess-lonal views. Such disposition includes rejection of matters which do not qualify as differing professional views as stated in 4125-01, or as defined in 042 of this chapter, d.
Provide the EDO or Commission (through the EDO) a statement of views on the disposition of referred DPO statements, e.
Provide the originator or the manager who forwarded a differing pro-fossional view with a disposition and a rationale for that disposi-tion and include a summary of the issue and its disposition in the Weekly information Report.
f.
To reduce the administrative burden and resource expenditure, main-tain only the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record of the informal proceedings until such time as an assessment is completed by the DPO Special Review Panel. -
Aceroved: Sectember 30, 1988 NUREG-1414 D-3 f
y
,, - -,,. - -,,, - -, - - - -, - ~ - -.
,,,---a,,-
,-n,.n.,
.,-n,a-
,,.,n...w..,
a w.-
l l
l 1
l NRC 4125-034 OlFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS i
034 Office or Recion Standino Review Panel:
a.
Reviews all signed er unsigned written statements of differing professional views or opinions for issues within the Office's or Region's areas of responsibility.-
b.
Reviews those OPCs that have not gone through the informal review process.
4 c.
Determines whether sufficient documentation was provided by the submitter of a differing professional view or opinion to uncertake a
)
detailed review.
d.
Makes recommendations to the Office Director or Regional Acmin-Istrator on the disposition of issues reviewed.
035 The Director. Office of Personnel:
a.
Retains all completed case files - of formal proceedings until such time as an assessment is completed by the DPO Special Review Panel.
b.
Ensures all DPCs and their dispositions are disseminated and/or mace available to the public in accorcance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
c.
Includes a summary of the issue and its disposition in the Weenly Information Report.
o d.
Administratively assists the DPO Special Review Panel.
036 Manacers and Suoervisors:
a.
Advise and assist employees in administratively preparing adeounte written statements of differing professional v'ews or opinions.
b.
In consultation with their managers, determine the amount of th*
originator's work time and administrative support to be provideo in response to the origi ~ tor's request for assistance, c.
When requested, maintain the confidentiality of the originator,of a differing professional view or opinion.
037 All Employees make known their best professional judgments on any matter relating to the mission of the agency by ' ubmitting a signed or un-s signed statement of differing professional view or opinion when appropriate.
038 OPO Special Review Panel:
a.
Periodically assesses, as necessary, the informal and formal proc-esses for dealing with differing professional y ows at,
- spinlons, including the effectiveness of the processes, low well they are l
Approved: September 30, 1988 14UREG-1414 D-4
..y-m,~--,
o I
OlFFERING PROFESSIONAt VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC 4125-04 understood by employees, and the organizational climate for having these views or opinions alred and properly decided.
b.
Based on this assessment, prepares a report to the EDO that identi-fles appropriata actions to assure the proper functioning of this activity.
c.
Reviews differing professional views and opinions submitted since 1
the last review to identify employees. whose differing professional views or opinions made significant contributions to the agency or to public health and safety but had not been properly or acequately recognized for this contribution.
4125 04 DEFINITIONS 041 Differino Professional Coinion.
Definition is the same as for a differing professional view, except that a differing professional opinion is submitted directly to the EDO or the Commission (depending on the, source of the DPO) either initially, o r,,
after an Office / Regional decision on a previously submitted differing professional view.
042 Differino Professional view.
A conscientious expression of p ro-fossional juogment wnicn, on any matter directly related to NRC's mission of J
licensing and regulating nuclear facilities. and materials, differs from the prevelling staff view, disagrees with a management decision or policy position, or takes issue with a proposed or an established agency practice. A differing professional view may be submitted in a written statement (signed or unsignec) i to an Office Director or Regional Administrator, depLnding on the issue (s) raisec, and may involve technical, legal or policy issues.
l 043 Retallation.
Retallation consists of injurious actions taken against an employee because of the expression or support of a differing professional view or opinion.
4125-05 BASIC REQUIREMENTS l
051 Acclicabilltv. Procedures for the - expression and resolution of differing profeF*ional views or opinions apply to all NRC employees including l
supervisors and managers. The procedures supplement other stated rights,
l duties, and safeguards appilcable to all Federal employees who make their l
views known either within or outside their agencies, including:
a.
the independent right of free speech provided by the First Amend-ment to the U.S. Constitution..
b.
the right of government employees to petition the Congress (5 USC v
7102),
c.
the rights of employees to communicate directly with the Congress as outlined in the Code of' Ethics for Government Service (10 CFR 0.735 - Annex A).
Accreved: Sootember 30, 1988 NUREG-1414 0-5
,_,_e_._.,
..._~__,,.,,,.m.._.
,__.k_,,_.,
s
)
i f
NRC 4125 052 OlFFERING PROFES$10NAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS d.
provisions of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act delling with pro-hibited personnel practices and the regulations of the Merit System Protection Board.
062 Ascendix 4125. This appendix provides procedures for the expres-sion and disposition of ciffering professional views and opinions.
4 I
j i
2
'l i
Approved: September 30, 1906 NUREG-1414 D-6 4
__,se,-
,,-~,.sn.,.-
m.
.,,.,,~
v v.
y,p 9~
-o,v-kw s-
o l
i i
l O!FFERING PROFE5510NAL VIEWS OR OPINTON$
NRC Apoendix 4125 l
l l
l CONTENTS
.Ptit i
A.
Introduction.....................................................
1 1
8.
Infomal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views.....
1 C.
Formel Process for Expressing Of ffering Professional opinions....
3-D.
Resources to Assist Originators of Offfering Professional Views or 0 pinions................
5 E.
OP0 $pecial Review Pane 1.........................................
5 F.
Use of Procedures for Differing Professional Views or opinions...
5 G.
Prevention of Retaliation Against Indivicuals Who Express or Support Di f fering Prof essional Views or Opinions...............
6 9
J r
J 1
Approved: Septemb'er 30, 1988 h'UREG-1414 D-7 g
.e 4
m --
l i
DIFFERING PROFES$10NAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC Accendix 4125 1
PROCEDURES FOR THE EXPRES$10N AND DISPO51 TION OF DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS AND OPINIONS l
?
l A.
Introduction
'4 in the free and open discussion of work matters, professional differences i
of opinion cre common. Employees normally try, and are encouragee, to
'I resolve their concerns through discussions with their co workers anc
}
Immediate supervisors, in some cases, such discussions may lead to the submission of a suggestion as part of the NRC Suggestion Program (Chap-ter NRC 4154).
l Such differences of opinion, developed in the free and open discussion i
of work matters, become differing professional views or opinions only when the originatcrs bring them to NRC management attention in ace:re-j ance with these procedures.
I In these cases, informal discussions may not resolve the matters and an
)
employee ma'y be convinced that the agency and the public would be bet-l ter served if another opi,nlon prevailed. To further pursue such matters using these procedures, an employee should submit a written statement
'l (signed or unsigned) of differing professional view or opinion in accordance with these procedures. An employee may not use these proce-i dures without submitting a. written statement. With the submission of I
a written statement to the EDO or - Commission (formal process), the i
i employee's differing view becomes a differing professional opinion (DPO).
i in additloa to the procedures contained in this Manual Chapter,. incivid-ual empi.
is are permitted to document their differing professional I
views ano ttach them to proposed staff position or other documents, to be forwaiud with the position is it moves through = the management approval chain. Individual employees are strongly encouraged to discuss their differing professional views within the chain of authority, espe-t clally with their 'mmediate supervisors, as a first step in resolving I
(
differing professionai views. No record keeping or documentation of this l
discussion is required, i
B.
Informal Process for Expressino Nfferino Professional Views f
1.
A Standing Review Panel (panet) will be permanently estabilshed in i
each Region, AEOD, NMSS, NRR, RES, and OSP to promptly review
}
differing professional views and propose a disposition propose a procedure to gain prompt disposition, or propose a reje,ction of the differing professional view. The panel will document its review I
findings and make recommendations to the Regional Administrator or l
Office Director, as appropriate.
l 2.
The panels, formally appointed in writing for one year by the j
Regional Administrator or Office Director, should be chaired by the Deputy Regis 'l Administrator, Deputy Office Director, or equivalent l
official. Each panel will include the Chair (and alternate) and one i
other member (and alternate) appointed by management. Additionally, the individual employee submitting a differing professional. view may I
\\-
l
-NUREG-1414 D'8 Approved: September 30,1988
{
i.
t
- e
\\
4 NRC Appendix 4125 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWh SR OPINIONS l
propose a list of qualified members who are willing to serve on the panel. The submitter may consult with the exclusive bargaining unit representative to select individuals who would be willing to serve.
The third panel member (and alternate) will be chosen by manage-ment from the proposed list. The panels are encouraged to solicit 4
i the views of experts knowledgeable of the issue (s) raiseo, if appropriate.
i 3.
The informal review process is initiated by a written statement, l
(signed or unsigned) that is submitted to the Regional Administrator or Office Olrector who will then forward it to the panel within five calendar days.
1 4.
The signed or unsigned written statement while being brief, must in f
3 all cases include the following:
a.
a summary of the originator's perception of the prevalling staff view, existing management decision or stated position, or the proposed or, established agency practice.
b.
a description.of the originator's - views and how they differ from any items discussed in a. above, c.
a statement of the originator's assessment of the resulting consecuences if the differing professional view is not adopted by the agency.
t S.
If an employee wishes to have his or her views considered as a dif-faring professied view but desires confidentiality, the employee may submit an m M statement of differing-professional view to a manager who wot 5e willing to forward it to the appropriate official. Olsposition the differing professional view will then be completed in accorcance with these procedures. To protect the employee's confidentiality in such cases, however, it may not be possible to provide the acknowledgement of receipt of the statement or the reports on disposition directly to the originator. In such cases, the manager who forwarded the differing professional view shall relay to the originator both the acknowledgement of receipt and all reports received by that manager concerning its disposi-tion or resolution.
6.
The panel should normally review the differing professional view within seven calendar days of receipt to determine if enough infor-mation has been supplied to undertake a ' detailed review of the issue. The panel should Informally ' contact the employee or the manager who forwarded the differing professional view if additional information is needed.
l 7.
Once the panel has received the necessary information to begin a review, the panel should normally take no more than 30 calendar Approved: September 30, 1988 2
NUREG-1414 0-9 4
P A
+
e.
, e -, eue, ~ r y,..,,
>--<a e-,--
,..,,,,,.n,,,y.
,,,,-,,m9,,.
-,,.w.y._,_..
p,,rv.,_,,y.
g,,.
'^
OlFFERING PROFE$$lONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC Accendix 412$
days to make a recommendation to the Regional Administrator or Office Director.
8.
The - Regional Administrator or Office Director should review the panel recommendation and provide. the concerned employee or the manager who forwarded the differing professional view with a dis-position and rationale of that disposition of the issue. Normally, this should occur within seven calendar days after receipt of the panel's recommendation. A summary of the issue and its disposition will be inctuced in the Weekly information Report.. Other dissemina-tion, as appropriate, should be made by Regions / Offices to aavise in% rested employees of the outcome.
9.
Extenuating circumstances may cause delays in conclucing the informal process. Notice of ~ delays should -be communicated to the submitter, or in the event of an unsigned statement, communicatec to the. rcenager who forwarded the differing professional' view. Offices and tegions are expected to expedite the dispositicn of differing -
professional views. - If the review and office-level disposition of the differing professional view does not occur within 60 calendar days from the datea of receipt by the Office Director or Regional Administrator, the-reason for delay should be reported to the EDO or Commission, as appropriate.
- 10. Those involved in the informal review process shall give priority.
handling to issues involving potential immediate or significant health and safety concerns. This includes calling such. Issues to' the immediate attention of higher management.
11.
To reduce the administrative burden and resource expenditures, only the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate recora of the proceedings should be developed and maintained. These rec-ords should be maintained and available only within the Region or Office.
l
\\
12.
Certain types of issues are excluded from this process and may be rejected by the Office Director or' Regional Administrator on that basis. These include those issues that do not qualify. as a differ-ing professional view as stated in 4125-01, _ or as defined in 042 of this chapter.
13.
If the informal process does not result in a satisfactory or a timely disposition of an issue, individual employees may pursue these issues by filing a formal DPO.
C.
Formal Process for Expressino Differino Professional Opinions 1.
The formal review process is initiated by a written ' statement (signed or unsigned) that is submitted to the EDO or Commission..
Employees in offices reporting to the EDO shall submit their DPO
~
j to the EDO. Employees in offices reporting to the Chairman or Commission shall submit their DPO to the Commission.
3 Approved: September 30, 1988 l
NUREG-1414 D-10 nwa p,,
~
v y ~
g I
l l
OlFFERING PROFES$1DNAL. VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC Appendix 4125 l
2.
For guidance on written statements and the desire for confidential-ity of differing professional opinion, refer to Section 8, items 4 l
and 5. DPO submittats must also include any informal process dis-l position of the issue.
If the EDO' or Commission receives a OPO that has not gone through 3.
the informal review process, the EDO or Commission shall forware it within five calendar days to the appropriate' Office Director or
~
Regional Administrator. Offices and Regions will then operate unoer the provisions of Section B.
4 4.
If, after the Office or Region review, the originator is satisfito -
that the matter is settled, a copy of the disposition will be sent i
to the EDO or Commission (as appropriate). The case file will be retained in the Office or Region, if the matter is not settloo to the satisfaction of the originator at the Office or Region levei, the Office Director or Regional Administrator will return the case file with his/her statement of views to the EDO or Commission (as appropriate) for a final decision.-
5.
The EDO or Commission t.u the option to use other qualified sources inside and outside the NRC to "sist in reviewing the issue.
6.
The EDO or Commission (as appropriate)'should review the views of the Offics Director or Regional Administrator, Standing Review Panel
{
and any(other source whose review was solicited. The EDO or Com-l mission as appropriate) will provide the concerned employee with a disposition and rationale of that' disposition of' the issue.
l Normally, this should occur within 30 calendar days after receiot of all solicited views requested by the EDO or Commission.
7.
Extenuating-circumstances may cause the EDO or Commission to delay in making a final decision. Notice of delays should be communicated to the submitter, or in' the event of an unsigneo statement, to the manager who forwarded.the DPO.
8.
To reduce the administrative burden and resource expenditures, only the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record k
of the proceedings should be developed and maintained. All completec DPO case files will be sent by the EDO and Commission to the Office of Personnel, which will include a summary of the issue and its disposition in the Weekly' information Report; and which will make the file or portions of the fits available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the hasdom of information Act.
9.
Those involved in the formal review process shall give priority I
handling to issues involving immediate or significant health and l
safety concerns.
- 10. Certain types of issues are excluded from this process and may be rejected by.the E00 or Commission on ' that basis. These include those issues that do not qualify as a DPO as stated in 4125-01 or t
as defined in 041 of this chapter.
Approved: September 30, 1988 4
NUREG-1414 D-11 L
t u
m
s 4
l l
I l'
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC Accendix 4125
sion (as appropriate) and communicated to the concerned employee If known, or to the manager who forwarded the DPO if unknown, the matter is considered to be closed and normally will not again be r
l addressed absent significant new information.
D.
Resources to Assist Oricinators of Differino Professional Views or Opinions To assist originators in preparing adequate written statements of differ-Ing professional views or opinions,' NRC management will allow a reason-able amount of the originator's work time and provide administrative suo-i If called to testify before a Licensing Board or an Appeal Boaro, port.
the employee may receive, upon request, assistance from the legal staff o
in preparing testimony or other documents to be filed with the Board.
Such assistance will be solely for the purpose of facilitating the fil-Ing of the necessary documents and will not constitute legal representa-tion > of the emoloyee by the legal staff. The originator's immeolate '
supervisor, in consultation with his or her manager, will determine the amount of. the originater's work time and administrative support to be l
provided in response to the originator's request for assistance.
E.
DPO Special Review Panel A DPO sip 3cial Review Panel (Review Panel) will periodically assess, as necessary, the informal and formal processes for dealing with differ-ing prefer.sional views or opinions, including the effectiveness of the j
processes, how well they are understood by employees, and the organi-l 4
zational climate for having these views or opinions alred and properly t
decided. Memoers of the Review Panel will be appointed by the EDO after l
consultation with the Chairman.
iI The Review Panel will prepare a report based on this assessment which will be submittee to the EDO for consideration. The report will also be distributed to all employees. The EDO will forward the report with any l
comments or recommended changes to the Commission for approval, in addition, the Review Panel will review differing professional views and opinions on any matter reling to the agency's mission submittec since the last review to identify employees whose differing professional views or opinions made significant contributions to the agency or to i'
public health and safety but have hot been kdequately recognized for this contribution. When award recommendations have not been made, they may be made by the Review Panel in accordance with provisions of NRC's
[
Incentive Awarcs Program (Chapter N RC-4154); Recommendations for i
awards will be included in the Review Panel's report.
i L
F.
Use of procedures for Differino Professional Views or Opinions t
These procedures were developed to assure NRC employees are able to freely express their differing views or opinions as defined in 041 and I-042 of this chapter and to underscore management's intention to address
[
these concerns in a timely, responsible manner. These procedures should j
i i
i 5
Approved: September 30, 1988 j
NUREG-1414 0 12 i
i
---.---,c..
.... -. ~. -,
u
-n.-..-.
~.m.
s NRC ADoendix 4125 DIFFERING PROFES$10NAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS 1
be used by all NRC employees with integrity and in accordance with the stated procedures.
2 G.
Prevention of Retallation Acainst Individuals Who Express or Suecort Differino Professional Views or Opintons Any NRC employee who retallates against another employee for submitting or supporting a differing professional view or opinion is subject to disciplinary - action in accordance with Chapter NRC 4171, " Discipline
)
Adverse Actions and Separations." This applies to retallatory actions as defined in this Manual Chapter and to all prohibited personnel practices specified in Section 2302, Title 5, U.S. Code as amended by the Civil Service. Reform Act of 1978.
l Employees who allege that retaliatory actions have been taken because of their submission or support of a differing professional. view or opinion may seek redress through the negotiated grievance procedure or througn the grievance procedure described in Chapter NRC 4157, " Employee
~
Grievances. "
4 l
l i
i 6
I Approved: September 30, 1988 6
NUREG-1414' D-13 O
,~
,s.
s'
/
a 1
4.
t APPENDIX E e
MANUAL CHAPTER 4126, AS APPROVED SEPTEMBER 30 1988 h
[
t i
i 1 '
i w
i y
i i
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC MANUAL Volume: 4000 Personnel OP l
Part : 4100 Federal I
i CHAPTER 4126 OPEN DOOR POLICY -
4126-01 COVERAGE This chapter and its accendix cover NRC polley, objectives, procedures, and responsibilities relatec to the expression of views directly to agency man-agers 6t all levels through the Open Door policy, it applies to all agency employees, including agency managers and supervisors.
4126-02 POLICY AND OBJECTIVES 021 Pollev.
The NRC strongly encourages all of its employees to foster an atmosphere in 'the agency in which they may openly and freely communicate their views on critical Issues, particularly those related to public health and safety. The free and opeh exchange of views or ideas conducted in a non threatening envircoment provides the ideal forum in which concerns ano alternative views can ce considered and addressed in an efficient and timely manner, much to the benefit of the agency and the public.
Individual NRC employees are expected to communicate their views and con-carns with their immeciate supervisors on a regular, ongoing basis. : On occasion, however, emotoyees may wish to initiate communications with other agency supervisors or managers about any work related issue or concern.
These supervisors or managers should consider and address those concerns and provide an appropriate response if possible.
9 022 Obiectives.
a.
To provide NRC employees with a channel for communicating l
concerns or issues directly to all levels of-responsible agency officials, b.
To protect e*' cloyees who use the Open Door policy from retallation in sny form because' of their proper use of this policy.
4126-03 RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES.
031 The Director. Office of personnel (OP),
requires all of the Headquarters anc Regional personnel offices to include an overview of the Open Door policy in the orientation for new employees.
4 W
Approved: September 30, 1988
]
~
NUREG-;414 E-1 I
~~.
i NRC 4126 032 OpEN 000R POLICY 032-Manacers and supervisers:
s.
Should, to the extent practicable, consider and adoress those issues and concerns brought to them, work to resolve - an employee's
- concerns, answer any questions, and honor any request for confidentiality, b.
Should not take or initiate any retallator y action against - any i
employee solely-because that employee utilized or supported another employee who utilized the Open Door policy.
However,-
.this does not practuoe supervisors from initiating,
- pursuing, l
or continuing to pursue unrelated personnel actions affecting employees who have used the Open Door policy.
033 All emplevees:
1 4.
Ara expectea to communicate their views and concerns to their Immeolate supervisor on a regular basis,
~"
b.
May request a meeting with any agency manager or supervisor under the Open Door policy to air or attempt to resolve any issue or concern.
4126 04 DEFINITIONS 041 Manaoer/ supervisor.
An employee who directs the work of - an organization, is noto accountable for specific line or staff programs or activities, or whose primary duties are managerial or supervisory.
042 Open O g. The availability of all levels of NRC management to meet with employees to discuss and attempt to resolve issues and concerns.
i 043 Retallation.
Retallation consists of any injurious actions taken against the employee because of the employee's expression or support of a
- concern, 4126-05 BASIC REQUIREMENTS 051 Applicabilltv. These procedures for the expression and resolution of employee concerns are for the use of all NRC employees including managers and supervisors.
052 Appendix 4126. This appendix provides. guidance for the expression of concerns unoer the open Door policy.
j Approved:
September 30, 1988
.wREG-1414 E-2 O
f A
,--.._m.
,___,y.,_,.,
y-..*w mm,,, -.. -.,
--wr
~v e
w og t;
OPEN' DOOR POLICY -
NRC ADDendix 4126.
GUIDANCE FOR THE EXPRESSION-OF. CONCERNS.
USING THE OPEN DOOR POLICY A. Open Door Any employee may' initiate a meeting with' an-NRC manager-or supervisor, including a Commissioner of the ' Chairman of NRC, toidiscuss any matter of concern to the employee.
An employee may: request an.Open Door meeting directly with the, selected manager; or supervisor: without the approval of intermeciate managert.3nt.
An employee's request ' for : confidentiality, will 1normally' be honored byi the manager or supervisor contacted under the Open Door policy _excsot when the manacer ccntactec is an NRC Commissioner.
Each Commissioner' is legally requ ree to inform all other Commissioners of anyL informa-tion believed, to be: related to _. the responsibility; or < the function of the, Commission.
(This requirement fe - mandatory _information : sharing
' plies only to the Commissioners and joes. not extend to others within hRC.): Subject to this constraint, 6tw tmoloyee's request-for-confiden-
- tiality. made; in. connection with cons c.ications.- under the Open Door policy will normally be ' honored - by it e NRC manager. unless' (1) as a practical matter It.is ' impossible.to c"nvey, the substance of Ini 'in-formation without making k,nown the i. entity of the employee, -(2) dis-closure of. the emotoyee's identity 1 essential _ for.' determination of the accuracy and ' *eliability of ' the information, or - (3). the -_ employees identity is required _to be released by law.
Managers and supervisors contacted will work to: resolve an employee's
- concerns, to. answer _ any questions, ' and - -to honor: a. request for -
confidentiality.
Nortoring a raauest for confidentiality l may, however, limit a manager's or tueervisor's ability to provide assistance or advice and counsel en matters of concern to the employee.
Managers and. supervisors should also-advise employees of other channels to be used for the resolution of concerns such as NRC Manual Chapters 4125 (Differing Professional Views.or. Opinion s ),~
4156 ( Appeals from Adverse Actions), and 14157 (Employee -Grievances)' _ If ' the contactec j
manager or superviscr believes' that others'should be notified of! Issues
- raised in these 0cen Door discussions, L he/she should, notify 1 the' responsible offices (e.g., the Office of Inspector and Auditor).
B.
Advisorv Committees-lf the' issue raissa under the Open Door policy _ reisaes to a potential safety Issue within the purview of the. Advisory Committee on Reactor LSafeguards ( ACRS) er the: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Weste ( ACNW),
an NRC employee may communicate' orally or in writing-directly. with the Chairman or any member of the - appropriate committee. Such communi-cation may include a request for confidentiality.
Approved: September 30, 1988.
NUREG-1414 E-3 1
y,
... - - g
m y
7 NRC Appendix-4126 -
OPEN DOOR-Pol.lCY i
An. NRC employee may also.= appear before ' the. ACRS or ' ACNW or a subcommittee as deemed _ appropriate by the committee. The ACR3 or ACNW will assure that issues raised. under the Open Door policy are forwarced!
to the responsible NRC office-. director. for information and/or action,; as -
appropriate.
. l C. Use of the Open Door Pollev'
~.
The Open. Door -policy was adooted to foster-an atmosphere of'open and free communication? within; the agency and-underscore. management's intention ~ tu consider ' and address those issues and' concerns brougnt to; 1
e
.them.
The *Open Ooor policy should-be used by all,NRC employees with.;
i tr;tagrity and for.the stated purpores.
- i D.
prevention of Retallation Acainst' Anv Emolovee for Exoressino i
or Succortino These who Exoress Concerns unoer the Ooen Door poliev 9
Any-NRC employee who retallates against another employee for exoressing 1 or supporting. those' expressing concerns -under open-Door policy is subject to disciplinary - action ini accordance-with NRC. Manual Chapter
~ i 4171 (Discipline, Adverse Actions -and Separations).
This applies to
-retallatory actions and to. all. prohibited personnel e practices specifloo i
in L Section 2302, Title 5,- W.S. Code.:
i Employees who allege that retaliatory actions have been taken because of their expression er support of a concern under the Open Door. policy may--
seek recress through other channels, sucn as the negotiated grievance procedure or through - the-formal-grievance -procedure ' described in ~NRC Manual Chapter 4157-(Employee Grievances).
l I
i 1
i t
Approvod: September 30, 1988 HUREG-1414 E-4
.d a
s
. j/
'.-s
~
x l.
-4 APPENDIX F PROPOSED MANUAL. CHAPTER 4125 t
f 9
9 b
e e
v
=
===4s;
, t-g i
l
_t l
1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'~
NRC tiANUAL-Volume: 4000 Personnel-Part
- 4100 Federal Op CHAPTER 412 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW 5 0R OPIN!ONS i
4125-01 COVERAGE Thischapteranditsabpendix.coverNRCpolicy, objectives, procedures,respon-sibilities, and other asic requirements and definitions established to provide for the expression and resolution of differing' professional. views-or opinions concerning matters related to-the agency's mission.-
s t
I Issues that do not qualify as differing professional views or opinions include issues that are or could have been appropriately addressed under grievance pro-t cedures, personnel appeal procedures, or. governed by. law or government-wide regulation; issues that are subject to collective bargaining; i.ssues: involving -
allegations of wrongdoing that are appropriately addressed by the Office of the Inspector General; -issues submitted anonymously which, if safety significant, are appropriately addrested under NRC's Allegation Program; issues that are-deemed to be frivolous or otherwise not in accordance with the policy underlying these procedures; and issues raised by an employee that already have been considered, addressed, or rejected pursuant to this chapter absent _
3 significant new information.
(SECTION G OF THE APPENDIX PROVIDES A QUICK-REFERENCE GUIDE FOR PROCESSING DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS AND OPINIONS.)
4125-02 POLICY AND OBJECTIVES An informal as well as a formal process.for considering the differing pro-fessional viewpoints of employees is established for issues directly related to the mission of the NRC.
Issues raised through.the informal process are called Differing Professional Views (DPVs).. Responsibility for ensuring review of the DPV and making and communicating a decision on the issue rests'within the Office or Region of the submitter. As necessary, this Office or Region utilizes expertise elsewhere in the Agency to assess or resolve the issue.
- Although the' informal process may appear to be structured, it is' intended to be a vehicle for the prompt, non-confrontational consideration'of issues by an impartial review panel, independent of an employee's direct supervisors,.with a minimum of documentation.
4 If the employee is not satisfied with~ the disposition of the issue through the informal process, the employee may file a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) l with the E00 if working in a Region or an Office reporting to the EDO, or with the Commission if werkir.g in an Office reporting to the Commission.
If an issue is submitted directly to the EDO or Commission prior to consideration as a DPV, it is immediately forwarded to the submitter's Office or. Region for review as a DPV through the informal process before action is considered through the formal DF0 process.
i I
NUREG-1414 F-1 l
a 1
a The objective of this' policy is to assure the full consideration and prompt
' ~
disposition of DPVs/DP0s. Thus, the focus is an independent, impartial review by qualified personnel. This policy can offer confidentitlity, but not anonymity.
021 Eglin.
It is the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the responsibility of all NRC supervisory and managerial personnel to maintain a working environment that encourages employees to make known their best professional judgments even though they may differ from a prevailing staff view, disagree with a management decision or policy position, or take issue with proposed or established agency practices.
Each DPV/DPC will be evaluated on its own merits.
It is not only the right but the duty of all NRC employees, including managers, to make known their best professional judgments on any matter relating to the mission of the agency. Moreover, both the general public and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission benefit when the agency seriously considers DPVs/DP0s.
This policy is intended to assure that all employees have the opportunity to express-DPVs/DP0s in good faith, to have-these views heard and considered by NRC management, and have protection from retaliation in any form for expressing
-a differing viewpoint.
022 Obiectives:
a.
To establish an informal process for expressing Differing Professional-Views (DPVs) and a formal process for expressing Differing Professional Opinions (DP0s).
b.
To recognize submitters of DPVs/DP0s when they have contributed significantly to the mission of the agency.
c.
To provide for periodic assessment, as necessary, to ensure that
(
implementation of these procedures accomplishes the stated objectives and to recommend appropriate changes.
4125-03 RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES l
031 The commission:
a.
Notifies the Director, Office of Personnel, that a DP0 has been received.
b.
Determines the disposition of DP0s submitted by employees in Offices l
reporting directly to the Commission and informs the DP0 submitter of the final disposition and rationale.
t l
Forwards to the EDO DP0 submittals from Offices reporting directly to c.
the EDO.
l d.
Forwards submittals that have not gone through the DPV process to the-l submitter's Office Director for processing as a DPV.
9 NUREG-1414 F-2 l
...p e
-qw w
.+
t.
L e..
Forwards anonymous submittals to th'e Office of Investigations, Office _
J of the. Inspector General, or appropriate Allegation Program Manager.
o j
l_
f.
Takes action,'as appropriate, on matters that appear to be of L.immediate health or safety significance, o
1 g.
Utilizes appropriate and qualified sources inside and outside the NRC.
~
to assist in reviewing a DPO.H h.
Provides a summary of the ~ issue-and its disposition in the Weekly -
Information Report.
- 1. -
Maintains the minimum' documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record of the formal proceedings. Sends all completed DP0 case files q
to the 0ffice of Personnel.
J.
Periodically reviews and mod'
'V/DP0 process based on-
]
recommendations 1from the ED0
'ial Review Pane 1Lon-Differing Professional, Views.- Op t.. u,....
j 032" The Execut'ive Director for Operations:(EDO):-
)
a.
Notifies the Direct' 3ffice of Personnel,'that-a DP0 ha. been received.
b.
Determines the disposition of DP0s submitted by employees'in Offices reporting directly to the EDO and informs the DPO submitter of the final disposition and rationale.
1 c..
Forwards to the Comission DP0 submittals from Offices' reporting directly to the Comission.
- i d.
Forwards submittals that' have not gone through the UPV process to the :
1' submitter's Office Director or Regional Administrator.to be. processed-as a DPV.
Forwards anonymous.submittals to the Office of Investigations, ' Office 1
e.
l of the Inspector General, or appropriate Allegation ~ Program Manager.'.
f.
Takes action, as appropriate, on matters that: appear to be of'-
imediate _ health or-safety significance.
g.
Utilizes appropriate and: qualified sources inside and 'outside the 'NRC to assist in reviewing a DPO.
h.
Provides a _sumary of the issue _and its disposition in the Weekly Information Report.:
l l
l L
l L
NUREG-1414 F-3
{
L :--
l
O
.,. c 1
l DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC-4125-032 L.
s i.-
Maintains the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record of the' formal proceedings. Sands all completed DPO case files to the Office of Personnel.
'j.
Periodically appoints members to a Special Review Panel to review the 0
effectiveness of the DPV/DP0 process.
L k.
Reviews-the-Spec 41 Review Panel's report and makes recomendations l
- to the Commissiu,, as necessary, j
l.
i 033.0ffice Directors and Reaional Administrators; L
a.-
Determine the disposition of DPVs submitted from employees within their Office or Region and inform the DPV submitter of the decision and its rationale.
b.
Forward anonymous submittals;to the Office of Inve:;cigations, Office of the Inspector General,.or appropriate; Allegation Program Manager, j
'l c.
Regional Administrators and Office Directors in. AE00, NMSS, NRR, and RES appoint and maintain a Standing DPV Review Panel. All other.
Office Directors appoint DPV~ Review Panels when a DPV is submitted by-l an employee assigned to their 0ffica, d.
Refer all'DPVs to the appointed DPV Review Panel for detailed review, except for matters-that appear to be of imediate health or safety--
significance, e.
Take action on and advise the:EDO or Comission of submittals= that appear to-be~ of imediate health or safety significance.
f.
Utilize technical assistance from other NRC Offices / Regions or from j
outside the agency, as necessary, to address-a highly specialized -
j issue.
If assistance from outside the-agency is required, Federal.
1 Advisory Comittee Act (FACA) requirements must be considered.
j g.
Provide a sumary of the-issue and its: disposition.in the Weekly ~
Information Report.
h.
Maintain the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an. accurate record of the DPV proceedings.
i.
When an employee chooses to continue the issue through the formal DP0 process,-a copy of the DPV records should be provided to the EDO or Comission, as appropriate, j
i
.NUREG-1414 F-4.
f.
m.
q nw
,,.c s
w
- -,,,.., ~
.-,w
.b-,
. - -. -.. +..
.ra,
=p I,
1 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL. VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC-4125-031 034-Office or Reaion-Review Panel:.
a.
Reviews-DPVs and makes recommendations to the-Office Director or Regional Administrator.
b.-
Determines whether sufficient documentation was provided by the DPV, L
' submitter for the Panel to undertake a detailed review.
c..
Requests technical assistance through the submitter's Office Director or Regional Administrator, if necessary.
035-The Director. Office of Personnel:
j q
a.
Monitors the' number of DP0 submittals being processed in the: agency. -
j
- b..
Retains 'all completed DP0 case. files of formal proceedings until such a
l time as an assessment is completed by a Special Review Panel, c.
Ensures that appropriate parts' of DP0s and their dispositions are I
disseminated-and/or made available to the public in accordance with?
I the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
I d.
Provides administrative support to the Commission,: EDO,:0ffice -
- Directors, Regional Administrators, and the Special-Review Panel in carrying out their responsibilities for DPV/DP0 processing.
i 036 Manaaers and Suoervisors:
l a.
Upon receipt of a DPV/DPO, submit the incoming correspondence to' the Office Director or Regional-Administrator for further; processing.
f b.
Advise and assist employees in administrative 1y preparing DPVs/DP0s.
t
- c.
Deterinine the amount of work time and administrative support to be.-
provided in response to a DPV/DP0 submitter's request for assistance.
d.
When mutually agreeable, maintain the confidentiality of the DPV/DP0 submitter by filing and discussing-the DPV/DP0 on behalf of the-employee.
037 All Emolovees acke known their best professional-judgments on any matter relating to the mission of the agency by submitting a DPV/DP0 when appropriate.:
HUREG-14.14
- c-5
- t l
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPIN10NS' NRC-4125-031-038 Snecial Review Panal:
a.
Periodically assesses, as: requested by the EDO,'the DPV/DP0 process including the effectiveness of-the process, how well it is understood by employees, and the organizational-climate =for having these views aired and properly decided, b.
Based on'this assessmente prepares a report to-the EDO that recommends-appropriate actions.to assure.the proper functioning of--
the DPV/DP0 process.
c.
Identifics and recognizes employees and managers'who have made' significant contributions to the agency or to public health and
. safety _ but were not-cdequately recognized forL their contributions'.
4125 DEFINITIONS
- 041 'Differina Professional View..A conscientious expression'of'a pro-
- fessional' judgment that differs from the prevailing staff view,3 disagrees'with e
a management. decision or policy position,.or takes issue with a proposed or an-established agency. practice involving technical, legal,1 or: policy! issues. :AL
- Differing Professional View (DPV) is to be submitted in writing to. the employee's supervisor, line management' official, Office Director or Regional-Administrator.
= 042 Differina Professional Ooinion..A DPV becomes a Differing Professional Opinion (DPU)-after it has been processed and decided and the:
submitter requests <that'the matter be considered further bytthe EDO or Commission.
043 Confidential Submittal. A DPV/DPO-that is submitted by an employee-through an NRC manager who knows<that the. submitter is an agency employee.
Anonymous submittals will not be considered under the provisions of this policy.
044 Retaliation. Retaliation consists of injurious actions taken against an employee because of the expression or support ofca DPV/DPO.
4125-05 BASIC' REQUIREMENTS-051 Anolicability.
Procedures for the expression and_ resolution of DPVs/DP0s apply to all NRC employees including supervisors and managers. The policy supplements other stated rights,' duties, and safeguards; applicable to -
all Federal employees who make their views known either within or outside their_
agencies, including:
the independent right of free speech provided by the First Amendment a.
-to the U.S. Constitution.
I NUREG-1414 F-6 c
4i g
)
p
.g.
p u
v,
- ,; +
r p
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC-4125-032'
-l b.'
the right of government employees to petition the Congress'(5 USC 7102)..
c;-
the rights'of employees to communicate.directly with the Congress as:
outlined in the Code of Ethics for Government Service:(10 CFR 0.735.-
. Annex A).
- l t
d.
>rovisions of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act dealing with pro--
-l 11bited personnel practices and the regulations of the Merit System Protection Board.
_j 052-Anoendix 4125. This appendix provides procedures.forlthe expression and disposition of OPVs/DP0s.-
'j
- q a
.\\
i i
q i
I i
l
\\
1 f
NUREG-1414 F-7 l
g., :
Jp e
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS
'NRC Annendix 4125' CONTENTS:
-1 l
E121
- l A.
Introduction.....................................................
1 B.
Informal Process forf Expressing Differing Professional' Views.....
I' C.-
Formal Process for Expressing. Differing' Professional Opinions....
3-j
'.I D.:
Resources to Assist Originators' of Differing Professional
' Views or 0 pinions................................................
15'
]
l E.
Speci al Rev i ew Pane 1............................................. !
F.
> Prevention of Retaliation Against Individuals Who Express or Support Differing Professional Views or Opinions.................
6 G.
DPV/DP0 Processing Flow Chart....................................
'7 l
' s i
I T
l
- i NUREG-1414' F-8 e
(-
w"*
~*
e.w
-g
U,
j.
I 1
l DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS Of OPINIONS-NRC Annendix-4125-
. PROCEDURES FOR THE EXPRESSION AND DISPOSITION -
0FDIFFERING= PROFESSIONAL-VIEWSANDOPINIONSf A. -
Introduction I
. In the. free -and open; discussion of1 agency issues, professional differences of o > inion are common. - Employees normally try.. and are encouraged, to resolve t1eir_-concerns-through - discussions with: their co-workers and immediate supervisor.'
Individual employees are permitted ~ to document their differing professional-
)
viewpoints and attach them to proposed staff positions'or'other documents,-to.
be forwarded with the position as -it' moves through the; management approval 4
chain.
Individual _ employees are:strongly encouraged to discuss their. differing-
'l professional. viewpoints, within.the-chain of command, especially_ with: their immediate supervisor, as a first step. towards resolution of the -issue.
No.
record keeping or documentation of this discussion is required.
Such differences of opinion, developed in the free and open discussion of work matters, become a Differing Professional View (DPV) or, a Differing Professional.
. Opinion (DPO)th-these procedures.- only when the employee brings.them to management's a accordance wi e
In these' cases, informal discussions _may not resolve the matter;and an employee:
i
(
may be convinced that the. agency and the - public would be.better served if) another ' opinion prevailed.
To further -pursueE such matters -using these; procedu.es, an employee must submit a written. statement in accordance with this Manual Chapter.
An employee -may not use these procedures without submitting'a 1
written statement.
B.
Informal Frocess for Exoressina Differina Professional 1 Views 1.
The DPV process is initiated byJ a written statement submitted either-through the management chain or directly to the Regional Administrator or Office Director who will then forward it to a DPV Review Panel within i
five calendar days.
Individuals who are contemplating the. submittal of.a 1
DPV and officials who receive a DPV are ' encouraged to contact the Director, Office of Personnel, for guidance on the' process.
2.
The written statement, while being brief, shall in all-cases-include the following:
i a.- ) summary of the prevailing staff view, existing management decision or stated position, or the proposed or established agency practice, b.
a description of the submitter's views and how they differ from any items discussed in a. above.
NUREG-1414 F-9 9
p=
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC Annendix 4125
- c.. an assessment of the ~ consequences ~ should the submitter's position not l
be adopted by the agency.
i i
3.
If ant employee wis'hes t'o ~ have a differing view considered as_ a DPV: but.
l desires confidentiality, the employee may; submit an unsigned DPV to an -
NRC ~ managar --who agrees toe forward it to : the appropriate official.
Disposition _ of-the DPV will' then be completed in accordance with these -
procedures.. To protect the employee's confidentiality in such cases, it-may not be possible to provide-teknowledgment of receipt of the statement n
or_ disposition directly to the
.bmitter. _In such cases, the manager.who-i-
forwarded the DPV shall relay to the originator. both the acknowledgment
- of. receipt and all c reports received ~ by - that - manager; concerning its disposition or resolution.
1 4.
Anonymously submitted DPVs are not ' covered by: the provisions of this -
Chapter.
Anonymous. submissions will be referred to :the Office. l of '
p Investigations, the Office of-the Inspector General, or the appropriate Allegation Program Manager.
5.
A' Standing Review Panel.(panel) is to be established.and__ maintained _in each Region, AE00, NMSS, NRR, - and RES to : review DPVs.
Directors' of '
Offices other than' those listed above should appoint DPV Review Panels only when a DPV has been ' submitted from their Office.
The panels are i-appointed. in writing-by the Regional; Administrator or Office Director,:
and _ should be-chaired by the Deputy ~ Regional Administrator,: Deputy Office a
l
- Director, or equivalent. official.
Each: panel will include a. Chairperson-and one other member appointed by management. - The~ submitter may consult -
L with the exclusive 1 bargaining unit representative to nominate qualified j
L individuals who would be willing to-serve as the' third panel > member. A l-third panel member will be chosen by the Chairperson from a list ~ proposed.
i l
by the employee submitting the DPV. ~
j 6.
The-panel should normally review the:DPV witnin seven calendar' days of receipt to determine-if enough information has been supplied to undertake a detailed review of the issue.
The panel should informally contact the 1
employee or the manager who forwarded the DPV.if additional -information is needed.
h 7.
Those involved in the informal review process.shall: give priority l
handling -to issues involving potential immediate or significant health and safety concerns.
This includes calling such issues to the immediate attention.of higher management.-
J l:
8.
Once the panel has received the necessary information to begin a review,-
j L
the panel should normally take no more than 30 calendar days to make a i
recommendation to the' Regional Administrator or Office Director, j
i i
NUREG-1414 F-10 i
u.
y s _ _
r
y
+
DIFFERING PROFESSICNAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC'Annandix 4125 9; The Regional Administrator or Office Directors should review: the panel's.
recommendations and' provide the employee -(or manager)' who submitted the' DPV' with a decision : and rationale for -that. decision.
Normally, this should occur within seven calendar dayse after receipt : of the panel's recommendations,
.A summary of the issue and its-disposition should be included in the Weekly-Information Report:to advise interested employees of the outcome.
10.l Extenuating circumstances may cause delays in concluding the DPV stocess.
1 Notice of delays-should be communicated to the. submitter, or. in tie event.
~
' ofca confidential : statement, communicated to; the manager who forwarded.
the DPV.'
If the review and disposition of the DPV does not occur within-60 calendar daysL from-the :dateL of receipt. by the Office Director or Regional Administrator, the-reason for delay should be reported to 'the 4
EDO or Commission, as appropriate.
~11. To reduce the ' administrative burden and _ resource expenditures, only the -
minimum documentation necessary to -preserve an accurate record ~of the proceedings should be developed and maintained.
These records should be maintained-and available'only within the Region or Office. If the matter.
is not settled to - the satisfaction of the submitter. and the submitter requests in writing that the issue be further reviewed under formal DP0 procedures, the Office Director.or Regional Administrator < will: forward the case file along with a statement of views on the unresolved issue (s) to the EDO or Commission,. as appropriate, for consideration as a formal-DPO.
c
- 12. Certain types of issues. ' are excluded from this process and,.may be rejected by the Office Director or Regional-Administrator.- These include those issues that do'not qualify as a DPV as stated in 4125-01.
C.
Formal Process for Exoressina Differina' Professional' 0oinions=
.l 1.
The formal DP0 review process may be initiated by an employee, after the l
DPV process has been completed, by submitting: a written statement-.to the EDO or Comission, as appropriate.
Employees in Offices reporting to the EDO shall. submit their DP0 to the EDO. -Employees 'in Offices. reporting to the Chairman or Comission shall submit their DP0 to the Commission.
2.
Written DP0 submissions shall meet the same criteria established for the submission of a DPV.
3.
If the EDO or Commission receives a DP0 that has not been considered:
through the DPV process, the ED0 or Commission shall forward it.within-five' calendar days to the appropriate Office Director or Regional Administrator for processing as a DPV.
Offices and Regions will then 1
operate under the provisions of Section B of this Appendix.
f NUREG-1414 F-11
,w4
-. +.... -..,
~, ~. -
.-,..m--
- - - ~ -,.. - - -,,..
t NRC Annendix 4125 DIFFFRING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS review the decision of the Office Director or Regional Administrator as well as the Review Panel's recommendations _ and any other source who has reviewed the issue.
5.
The EDO or Comission may utilize qualified sources inside and outside the I
NRC to assist in reviewing the DPO.
6.
The EDO-or Comission (as appropriate) will provide the submitter with a decision and rationale for that decision.
Normally, this should occur within 30 calendar days after receipt of all solicited views requested by the EDO or Comission.
Extenuating circumstances may cause the ED0 or Comission to delay in making a final decision.
In such cases, the submitter should be advised of the time frame for ccnsidering the issue.
7.
To reduce the : administrative burden and resource expenditures, only the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record - of the proceedings should be developed and maintained.
All completed - DP0 case files will be sent by the ED0 and Comission to the Office of Personnel, which will make the file or appropriate portions of the file available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
8.
Any NRC employee or manager involved in the DP0 process shall give immediate priority attention to issues involving significant health and safety-concerns.
This includes advising the Office Director, Regional Administrator, or as appropriate the ED0 or Comission, of any imediate safety concerns.
9.
Certain types of issues are excluded froin this process and may be rejected by the EDO or Commission.
Issues that do not qualify as a DP0 are. stated in 4125-01,
- 10. After a decision on a DP0 is made by the ED0 or Commission and comunicated to the submitter (or to the manager who forwarded the.DPO),
the matter is considered closed and will not be considered further absent significant new information.
D.
Resources to Assist Oriainators of Differina Professional-Views or' Ooinions To assist submitters in preparing adequate written DPVs/DP0s statements, the submitter's immediate supervisor, in consultation with their manager, will determine the amount of the employee's work time and-administrative support to be provided in response to the employee's request for assistance. If called to testify before a Licensing Board or an Appeal Board, the employee may. receive, upon request, assistance from the legal staff to prepare testimony or other documents to be filed with the Board.
Such assistance will be solely for-the purpose' of facilitating the filing of the necessary documents and will not constitute legal-representation of the employee by the legal staff..
4 d
l NUREG-1414 F-12 i,,-
f
.V 8
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC Anoendix 4125 E.
Soecial Review Panel A Special Review Panel should periodically assess the DPV/DP0 process including
-)
its effectiveness, how well it is understood by. employees, and the organi-zational climate for having such views aired and properly decided. Members of-the Special Review Panel will be appointed by the EDO after consultation with the Chairman.
i The Special. Review Panel will prepare a report based on this assessment that will se submitted to the EDO for consideration.
The report or its Executive Summary will also be distributed to all employees.
The EDO will forward the -
report with any comments or recommended ' Manual Chapter changes to the Commission for approval.
In addition, the Sr.:cial Review Penel will review DPVs/DP0s completed since the-i last review to ide.,1fy employees who have made significant contributions to the agency or to public health and safety but have not been adequately recog-nized for this contribution.
When award recommendations have not been made, t
they may-be made by the Special Review Panel in accordance with provisions of NRC's Incentive Awards Program-(Chapter NRC-4154).
Recommendations for awards will be included in the Special Review Panel's report.
F.
Prevention of Retaliation Aaainst Individuals Who Exoress or Suonort Differina Professional Views or Ooinions Any NRC employee who retaliates against another einployee for submitting or supporting a DPV/DP0 is : subject to disciplinary action in accordance with i
Chapter NRC-4171, " Discipline, Adverse Actions and Separations." This applies to retaliatory actions as defined in this Manual Chapter and to all prohibited L
personnel practices specified in Section: 2302,. Title 5, U.S. Code, as amended l
by the Civil Service Reform Act of-1978.
Employees who allege that retaliatory actions have been taken.because of their submittal-or support of a DPV/DP0 may seek-redress through1the negotiated grievance procedure or through the grievance procedure described in Chapter NRC-4157, " Employee Grievances."
i NUREG-1414 F-13 l
~,
p.
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC:Annendix 4125 G.
DPV/DP0 Phocessino Flow Chart y
Steps in,cocessing a DPV/DPO..
1.-
Employee writes.a Differing Professional-View (DPV).
r
-2.:
The' DPV should be submitted directly or through ~1ine-management, to the employee's. Office Director / Regional Administrator.
If submitted
'to anetF&c NRC. organization it is forwarded to the employee's Office 1
Directw/ Regional. Administrator for processing through the informal
. DPV. prot.ess.
The. employee's Office - Director / Regional = Administrator.
i
~ cknowleJges receipt and-forwards-the submittal to~ the DPV Review a
- Panel for action...(AE00, NRR, NMSS, RES, and Regions have standing-panels;. other Offices appoint an ad hoc review panel to review' the
. submittal. )
The-Office Director or Regional. Administrator: appoints.
~ the panel chairperson and another panel. member.
The submitter may4 q
provide a list' of. qualified individualsz to the panel chairperson who
selects one of them to -serve as the. third member of the DPV Review Panel.
3.
The DPV Review Panel considers the DPV and Lorovides the sutimitter's'~
i Office Director / Regional Administrator a report. of findings. and a recommended course of action.
4.
The~ 0ffice Director /Regionalf Administrator considers' the nPV' Review Panel's report, ~ makes a decision on' the DPV; providea a written decision to the submitter; and, includes a~ summary of the. issue:ar.d its disposition in the NRC Weekly Information Report.
The DPv' file-is retained in the Office / Region.
5.
Based on the Office Director's report,-the submitter'may consider the matter closed.
q 6.
If the submitter does not consider the' matter closed, 'a written DP0 statement expressing - continuing concerns may be ~ submitted to the 3
i
, Commission or EDO, as appropriate, i
7.,
Upon receipt of a formal, DPO, the Commission /EDO contacts the submitter's Office Director / Regional ~ Administrator to obtain all records that may aid in_the formal'DP0 review process.
When the Commission /CD0 has. completed its review, a written decision is provided to the submitter and the case file is forwarded to the Office of-Personnel.
8.
Upon receipt of a decision from the EDO or Commission ; the -DP0 process is concluded.
i L
u NUREG-1414 F-14 l
L-g.
' j.
r.
4 e-NRC Appendix 4125
. DIFFERING FROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS-i G.
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONSL 1
~
i INFORMAL (DPV) PROCESS ;
j DPV SUB e-1 f OFFICE / REGIONAL MANAGEMENT-1 f OFFICE / REGION
~
REVIEW PANEL 1 f
]
?
OFFICE DIRECTOR OR
'I REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
- l
- u DPV SUB FORMAL (DPO) PROCESS ~
v DPO SUBMITTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR COMMISSION FOR OPERATIONS
- 7 '
l DPO SUBMITTER NUREG-1414 F-15
..-,-.:,....+
i..-. w..-.-.-.
,e
')
1 l
l APPENDIX G F
PROPOSED MANUAL CHAPTER 4126 t
b 1
4 7
8 t
l '
l l
h h
i l
1 l
l l-j.
l-
. l.
i
- o-e
?
i l
l l --
NRC MANUAL:
U'.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
l
' Volume: 4000 Personnel OP Part : 4100 Federal-y CHAPTER 4126 OPEN DOOR POLICY y
l-4126-01
_ COVERAGE This chapter and its sooendix. cover NRC policy,. objectives, procecuresi anc I
resconsibilities relatec c to the. exorossion of.vlews directly to. agency man-(
agers-at Jail levels thr: ugh the Open Door policy, it applies to all agency-
' employees, including agency managers ano supervisors.
~
p 4126-02 POLICY AND OBJECTIVES 021 Pollev.' The NRC strongly'. encourages all-of its emolovees to foster -
an atmosphere in the agency in which they may openly and freely communicate their views on critical -issues. particularly those related to puolic neaitn anc safety. The" free : anc open exenange of. views 1 er ideas concuctec in a
- non threatening envir nment provides the. ideal.' forum in which. concerns ano alternative : views : can ce: considereciand ' addressed in an efficient - anc. timeiy?-
-manner, much to the. benefit of the agency and the public.
Individual NRC - employees are ' expected to communicate their ' views and con--
l cerns with their Immeciate supervisors on a, regular, ongoing' basis " On I
occasion, -however, L emotoyees J may.wish to initiate communications with' other-agency supervisors or managers ' about > any - work-related-Issue -~or7 concern.-
These supervisors or managers should consicer and address those concerns:anc provide an appropriate response if possible.
t 022 Objectives.
a.
To provide, NRC employees -with a channel forf communicating concerns-or issues directly.
to all levels of: responsible agency officials.
b.
To protect employees whov use the Open Door policy from retaliation in any form - because of.' their proper ' use ofEthis policy.
4126-03
-RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES 031 The Director. Office of Personnel (OP),. requires
. all of the =
Headquarters anc Regional personnel - offices to include an - overview. of the Open Door policy in the orientation for new employees.
b NUREG-1414 G-1 j
'a
- 1 m
m.
m
,,y-o
.%.y, y,,,,,
y
r% '
s 1
OPEN 000R POLICY NRC-4126 032 l
'032-Manacers and suoervisors:
a.'
Should, = to the. extent practicable, consider? and address these Issues and : concerns brought - to them, - work to ' resolve an f
l employee's
- concerns, answer' any questions, and-honor any request for confidentiality..
b.
Should not take or Initiate any retallatory ~ action ~ against1 any.
l employee soleiv i because that-emoloyee utilized-or supportec l
another empievee who. utilized the Open Door policy.
- However, j
this does net.precluce supervisors from' initiating,
- pursuing, or continuing to. pursue.unrelateo personnel ' actions.affecting i
employees-who navo useo the Open Door policy.
\\
033-All emplovees:
I a..
Are expectee to communicate their views and ' concerns to ' their immeolate sucervisor on a regular basis.
s b.
May request a meeting with'. any agency manager or supervis:r i
under - the f Coen Door policy ;to ' air J or attempt to resolve ~ any issue or concern.
'4126-04 DEFINITIONS 041 Manacer/suoervisor, c An - employee who. directs.the work'. of an i
organization, is neio accountable - for specific line or staff programs : or-'
i activities', or whose primary duties are managerial or supervisory.
042 Open Door. The availability of ' all levels of ' NRC management to.
meet with employees' to ciscuss and attempt to; resolve issues. and concerns, t
043 Retaliation.
Retallation consists of any injurious actions taken against' the employee sacause of the employee's expression or support of a concern.
y 4126-05 B ASIC - REQUIREMENTS 051.
Apolicabilltv These procedures for the ; expression and. resolution of employee concerns are for the use of all NRC employees including managers and supervisors.
052' Accendix 4126. This appendix provides guidance for the expression of concerns unoer tne open Door policy, i
NUREG-1414 G-2
r-.
1 L
OPEN 000R POlolCY NRC Aeoencie 4926, l
GUIDANCE FOR THE EXPRESSION OF CONCERNS USING THE OPEN DOOR POLICY A. O' en Door o
Any employee may initiate a meeting with an NRC manager.or sucervis:r.
including a Commissioner or the Chairman of NRC, to ciscuss any matter of concern to the emotoyee.
An employee may request an. Open Cecr meeting directly witn the selected manager or supervisor without tr.e approval of intermeciate management.
An - employee's-request for confidentiality will normally be honorec.cy' the manager or sucervisor contacted under - the Open Door policy excect when the manager :entactec is an NRC Commissioner.
Eacn Commissioner is legally requirec - to inform all other Commissioners of any informa-tion believed to be related to-the respontibility or the function :f the Commission.
(This requirement - for mandatory' information snarir.g aoolies only ' to the Commissioners and does not extend to others' witn:n NRC.) Subject to inis constraint, an' employee's request for conficer.-
tiality-mace in connection with communications under ' the Open Ocor policy - will-- normally be - honored by the NRC manager unless (1) as a practical matter it is impossible to convey the substance o,f the
'n-formation without maning known the identity of the employee. (2) cis-closure of the emoioyee's identity is. essential for determination :f-the accuracy anc *eliability of the information, or (3) the emoicyee s identity is requireo to os releasec by law.
Managers and supervisors contacted will work to resolve an emotovee s concerns, -to answer any questions '
and-to honor a request - ':r confidentiality.
Honoring
- a. request for confidentiality may, however, limit a
- m. nager's :r sucervisor's ability - to provide assistance - or aovice and counsel en matters of concern to the employee.
Managers and supervisors should also advise employees of other channeis to be used for. tne tesolution of concerns such as NRC Manual Chacters 4125 (Olffering Professional Views or Opinions), 4156 (Appeals from Adverse Actions), anc '4157 (Emotoyee Grievances). If the contactec manager or supervisor believes that others should be notified of issues.
raised in these Ocen Door discussions, he/she should notify _ the responsible offices (e.g., the Office of the Inspector General).
B.
Advisorv Committees if the issue raisec under the Open Door policy relates to a potential safety issue within the purview of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ( ACRS) or the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW),
an NRC employee may communicate orally or In writing directly ' with the Chairman or any member of the appropriate committee. Such communi-cation may include a request for confidentiality.
HUREG-1414 G-3
'i l
_ _ - ~ -
~. - _ - - - _ - - -
> 4 -l
' g/5 1
I NRC Appendix 4126 OPEN COCR POLICY 4
4 w
L An NRC: employee may.also : appear before the e ACRS t or-ACNW or a j
subcommittee as deemed appropriate.by.the committee.. The. ACRS or ACNW f
will assure that' issues raised under the Open Door policy are forwarceo-to. the responsible NRC office director-for information and/or act.on, as
[
appropriate.
1
, ]
L C. Use of the Ooen Coor Pollev y
l
' The-. Open Door. policy was; adopted to foster an atmosphere of open anc
~
free. communication. withinL the agency and underscore management'$'
' l intention to consider and address. those -Issues and concerns ;>ro0gnt t them.
The Open Ooor policy should ' be:usec by all NRC emWovees witg integrity sr.d for the stated purposes..
- D.
Prevention of Rethilation Acainst' Anv Emolovee for Exoressino or succortino Tnese who Express Concerns Unoer tne 0cen Door believ.
Any NRC emphvet ivho retaliates against another employee for;excressing.
or supporting..hese-expressing concerns under Open DoorJ po!!cv ls '
subject to disciolinary action in ;accorcance withe NRC Manual Chaoter 4171 (Discipline, Adverse Actions Vandl Separations); 'This applies : :o.
retaliatory acti:ns - and to all prohibited ; personnel practices x speciflac j
4 in Section 2302. Title 5, U.S. Coce.
Employees who ailege that : retallatory actions have been taken escause ef1 l
l their expression :r. support of a concern-under the Ooen: Door policy may r
seek recress-- thr ugn other channels,7such?as - the negotiateo grievance procedure or thr:ugn the formal gr;.vance procacure dascribec in, NRC -
Manual Chapter 4157 (imployee. Grievances).
j l:
'l 1
I I
L-i>
l l
w NVREG-1414 G-4 i
t 9..
n xl..
m.,.
,v
-sw,