ML20096C674
| ML20096C674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1992 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-1414, NUDOCS 9205140213 | |
| Download: ML20096C674 (78) | |
Text
-
- =-_ - -
- - r
===:
~
Di:f:?ering Pro:?essional Views or Opinions 1990 Special Review Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Review Panel L
l p+""%,
"a f
$k hgggg 92043o 1414 R PDR
AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Refc'ence Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publ ations will be available from one of the following
)
Sources 1.
The NRC Pub'ic Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Lower Lovci, Washington, DC 20555 2.
The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Ponting Offico, P.O. Box 37082,
)
Washington, DC 20013 7082
)
1 The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents citr+d in NRC oublica<
tions, it is not intended to be othaustivo.
B Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a 100 from the NRC Pubhc Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda: NRC bulletins, circulars, information noticos, inspection and investigation noticos; teconsee event reports; ve1 dor reports and correspondence: Commission papers; and applicant and licensee docu-ments and correspondence.
=I i
The following documents in the NUREG series are availabio for purchase from the GPO Sales Program; formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NHC, sponsored conference procood-ings, international agreement reports, grant pubhcations, and NRC booklets and brochures.
Also available are tegutetory guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Acquietory Commission issuances, Documents avaitab!O from the National Technical Information Servico include NUREG-senes reports and technical reports prepared by other Federal agoncies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Comm6ssion, forerunnor agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents available from oubhc and special technical hbrarios include all open hteraturo-items, such as books, journal articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, Federal and Stato legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these
- hbraries, i
' DocumeSts such as theses, disaettations, foreign reports and translations, and non NRC conference procoodings are a/ailable for purchase from the organization sponsoring tho
- publication cited.
S;n, a copios of NRC draft reports are evallable free, to the extent of supply, upon wntten -
request to the Offico of Administration, Distributica and Mail Serv;ces Section U.S. Nuclear -
i Regulatory Commission, Washington. DC 20555.
Copios of Industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norio!k Avenue, BothcSda, Maryland, for
=
use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are Amedcon National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
i 1
l
-s a n, ;.. n.a m r a m
..,v, a
n
.,e,,-
.n.,,
i,r e
u.,
,,,n
--,4,,,
,,n,
,w
,.,..m w,
m.w, m,
Differing Professional Views or Opinions 1990 Special Review Panel Manuscript Completed: March 1992 Date Published: April 1992 Special Review Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, DC 20555
- 6ee'
-,uy-ts,-p-e.s s-ve,,*ee p.ar ar<&'
'dwrC-pw-
-e twe-dw--+r v-1
-^w-"-*'-4-m' w'
' * - * =
"*W 'r--e--reww
-a=r,earw=--y
i AllSTRACT In December 1989, the lhecutive Director for Opera-having thne vi;ws and opinions aired and properly de-tions ei the U.S. Nucicar 1(crulatory Comnussion (N1(C) eided." '!his report presents the Special f(eview Paners appointed a Specialiteview Pane to oaluate the effee-coaluation of the Ni(C's current p*ocess for deahng with tiveness of NRC Manual Chapter 4125, Diffenng Profce lhffering Profeuional Views or Opiniont Provided in sional Views or Opinions, and NRC Manual Chapter tha report are the results of an einployee opimon survey 4126. Opet 1h>or Policy. In necordance with Section li of on the process; highlights and suppestions fro,n interviews 6
NRC Appendix 4125, thc Panel was responsible for as-with individuals who had submitted a lhlfering Profes-sessing *.. the informal and formal processes for dealir; siunal View or Opinion, as well as with agency manager s with differing professional views or opeont anciuding diteetly imolved with the Differing Prof essional Views or the effectr 'eness of the processes how well they ate un-Opinions paress: and proposed revisions to Manual derstood by employees, and the organi/ational climate for Chapters 4125 and 4126.
l D
P 5
l
~
l l
l 1
1 M
i.
iii NU RIG 1414
CONTENTS Page Alls'111ACl*.............................................................................
iii E x tic uriv E S u hl M AR Y..............................................................
vii r
FO R E WO R D...........................
h SPECI AL Rl!Vil!W PANiii RiiPORT.....................
I
......~........................
Unckpound...............,........................................................
I Panel l'indings and R ecommendations..................................
I 1
liffectiveness...........................
i l ow Well U nde rstood...............................
2 Orga nizational Climatc....................
2
~
3 Open Door Policy...................
4 M e t h odology..............................,
P APPENDICES A. Manual Chapter 4125. 'as approved September 30.1988..............................
A-1 IL Manual Chapter 4126, as appros ed Septemlict 30,19N8..........
11 - 1 C. S pecial R eview Pa nel Chart er........................................................
C-1 D-1 D. S u rvey Q u es t ian nair e.............................
E. In terview Onestions and Results...........................................................
11-1 I'l F. Proposed Manual Chapter 4125...................
G. Proposed Mitnual Chapter 4126.................................
G-1 I
y v
v EXECUTIVE SUMM ARY 7
A irec and open discussion of differing professional views addressing DPVs/DPos are not bemg consistently is essential to the desetopment of sound regulatory pilin f ollow ed.
and decisions. In recogmtion of that fact since 1976 the ORG ANIZATION Al. CLIM ATl!
U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission (Ni(C) has pro-vided ways for emplo)ces to bring their differing proles-sional views to the attention of the highest levels of Whde there are mme indications that the NRC management. In 1960, NRC Manual Chapter 4125 was organizatiimal cliinate for considering ddfermg pro-published, outlining arJ describing the NRC'r thffering fessional viewpoints has improved, these are also Professional Opinion policy. In mjd-1987, a Special Re-indications tht point to continuing Jeficiencies m the climalr.; therefore, continued efforts m this view Panel examined this pohey, As a result of that Pan.
ers findings and recommendations, published in regard are ceeded.
NURiiG-1290, modifications were made and the curr ent OPl!N DOOR POI.It Y Manual Chapter 4125, Differing Professional Views or
- Opinions, and Manual Chapter 4126, Open Door Polig, A subst;mtial number of NRC employees zue not
' were approved September 30,1988.
aware of the NRC*s Open Door Pohty.
o In accordance with Section I!of Appendix 412$,a Speelal llased 0n these hndings, the Panel secommends that Review Panel is to periouically assess the effectiveness of Ngc:
the revised proceduret 'Ihe first such panel was Continue to cmphasue the importance of an ef fee.
appointed by the Hxecutive Director for Operations in December 1989. To examine th2 eurrent policies and tive and practical DPV/DPO pohey and mcorpomte procedures, the Special Review Panel conducted an em-a number of clanfications and revisions to Manual phiyee opinion survey, held interviews, and reWewed the Chapter 4125.
processing of actual Differing Professional Views (DPVs)
Improse manager and emplo3ce understandmg of and Differing Profe,ssional Opinions (DPGs).
the DPV DPO pohn and its proper implementa.
On the twis of its review, the Special Review P.mel camt tion iluous$ several initiatives, including:
to the conclusion that revisions to the policies haec h:~ '
positive effect; however, there is stdl room for improw-Providmg training to stalf and management of-ficials on the DPV/DPO process; ment.
Publishing a revis(d Manual Chapter 4125 that One specific impmvement c.oted was the inclusion of the clarifies the DPV/DPO process and indudes a less formal DPV procer "le the DPV/DPO process is flow chart diagmmming ihe prwess; a continuum, a DPV :
<es less documer tation and occurs at a lower lesel m the organization. The Panel Identdying the Director. Office of Personnel, believes this modification to the policy should continue.
to servc as a specibe point of contact who can Additionally, the Panel idemified several areas vhere provide advice on the pdicy and its application
(
further improvements are warranted.
ta managers and employees; 1
ll
' Die Paners findings are as follows; Distributing a bnhme to all employees that explains the prosess in simplified terms; o
liffliC11Vi!NiiSS Distnbuting an all.cmployee announecment highlighting the important thanges made to the Although there' is some indicatian that a gre"ter pohn as a result of this tesicw and identif mp 3
l number of apeng employees believe th: DPV/DPO the point of contact.
process is effective, a number of minor changes and etarifications to Manual Chapter 4125 are war ranted Continue to implement actions to improve the or-to refleet current expenence and to further improve xanitational ehmate for subimtting a dtlTering pro <
program effectiveness' fess onal view 1d nt.
Communicate ta all employees additional infor ma-o' HOW.WIII.1 UNDliR$1OOD l-tion on the NRC Open Door Policy as one of a Virtually all agency emphiyees are aware of.he number of options for espr esdng [n ofessional view s, DPV/DPO proecss; howes er, proecdures for in addition, the Special Review Panel was asked to vii N t iRiiO.1414
~
identify emphyces w hose DPWDPO made a signifi-
'therefote, the Panel concluded that consideration cant etmtnbution to the agency and public health for recognition in those casn should be deferred, arid safety but were not adequ'itely recognized for
'three other DPWDPGs had been fully considered theircontnbution, At the timeof the Panel't, review, and resobed. 'lhe PancI concluded that speci:d four of the DPW/DPOs (tied were not complete, recognition was not warranted in those cases.
i I
l l
l i
I NURl!O-14ja viii
. 2.
..~.a.
_ _. _...- -..,... _, _ -. - ~. _..,_.,._ a._ _.-..,.- - ~.. _. _ _,
..--.. -z
FOREWORD 1
i in December 1989, the Executive Director for Opera.
John M. Montgomery tions of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissim (NRC)
Deputy Regional Administrator, appointed a Special Review Panel to evaluate the effec.
Region IV.
tiveness of current NRC Manual Chapters 4125 and 4126.
He Panel members were:
Others who contributed extensively to this project in.
clude:
- $aul !!. Ilird Director, Or*;e of Personnel.
Maria Rucci Dolan who provided writing and editing Appointe6 as Panel Chairperson, support for the Cominission report and the resulting NURl!O document; and who managed the design, Clemens J. llettemes, Jr.
administration, and analysis of the ernployee opin.
Deputy Director, ion survey.
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
J. David Woodend who provided advice and pid-Peter C. Ilearn ance in the revisions of Manual Chapters 4125 and Senior Reactor Operations I:ngineer, 4126.
Vice President, Chapter 208, National Treasury Emphiyces Union.
Terry firown who provided taxt processing support.
l i.
ix NURl:0-1414
, ~.
J SPECIAl, RlWlEW PANEL REPORT The United States Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission discussion and free use of the DPVil)PO proccu. In (NitC)is regularly faced with making difficult decisions -
addition, the process and procedures for adJtessing decisions that can have profound impacts on public health DPVvDPOs are not being followed consistently. In this and safety and on our nathmi nuelcar energy program.
regard, the panel identihed several arcas where further As a result, in makmg important safety decisions the improvements are warranted.
Commission must have at its disposal the best informa-lifl!CTIVI!NiiSS tion available.
for the NRC to successfully meet its regulatory responsi.
NUIM 'Uth" ugh flicor is ame indication that a bilities, the ageng must ensure that the decision making I'ruter number of atency r.nplopes br/irrr the D/17 process includes and considers all points of view in an UIV P'wm is <fectirr,.: num/,tr of mirmr c/writo organbational chmate that promotes open discussion.
and rlarifications to Manual Chapter <llH arr nar-rarsted la refert current raperitnre smd to further im-prorr program rfertivencsr.
llackgrouOd i
There br,s been a posiuve cifeet on employee perceptions
'lhe NRC's com9.itment to a free and open discussion of of the DPWDPO policy since the last revision. Specifi-professional views h illustrated m the NRC Open Door cally,29G of those responding in the survey indicated Policy (first communicated to ageng omployees in 1976) that the cur rent pohg is effective /ihis compares to M and the NRC Differing Professianal Opinion Pohey (for-who oc responded in the previous employee survey. ~lhe mally established in 1980). 'lhese pohcies permit employ-Panel believes that this improvemt nt is in par t due to the ces a; all leveh to provide professional viewpoints on addition of the less formal DPV for considering differing virtually idt matters pertaming to the apengi rnission.
viewpoints. I or esample, the DPV process seems to be effective in improving communication and addrcssing is-In 1987, a Commission appointed panel conducted an sues that previously would hase requ red lido or Com-extensne review of these policies. As a result of this mission action as a DPO.
Paneli findings and rccommendations, the pokeies were r
separated and amended into Manual Chapter 4125, Dif-Yet the Panel was troubled by the fact that almost 6W of l
fering Professional Views or Opinions, and Manual the survey respondents either did not know whether, or Chapter 4126, Open Door Pohg, as approved September disagreed that, the policy provides ar; cffective means of 30; 1958. Copies of Manual Chapters 4125 and 4126 are employee expression. Further, the Panel was not certain -
included as Appendices A and 11, tespecuvely.
how tointerpret the apparent low usage of the DPVf DPO pmeen On one hand, the few DPVs/DPOs actually fded in December 1989, the lhecutive Director for Opera-ma) indicate that there is a high degree of consensus tions appointed a Special Review Panet to assess the among the professional staff on the ageng's direction and effectiveness of the revised procedures (Appendis C)-
positions. Given the nature of the NRC% work and the Specifically, this panel was tasked to assess the informal number, complexity, and importance of the issues, the and formal processes for dealing with Ddfering Profes few DPV3/DPUs submitted could indicate that diffenng sional Views and Opinions (DFVs/DPOs), includmg the viewpoints are, for the most part, beinit addressed and l
effectiveness of the processes, how well they are Lnder-satisfactorily resolved without using the DPV/DPO pme-stood by employees, and the organizational climate for
- ess, l
having DPVs/DPGs aired and properly decided.
On the otner hand, the Panel had some indications (c.p.,
survey results, oral remarks, and the wntien comments 101 Find, igS HIld RCCOHill10HdallOHS from an individual involved wah an onpoing issue) that Pa H
- E*## " *N
- 9"#"b NY
- Afterreviewingthe statusof thecurrent DPV/DPO proe-cHnN bWauw of the current organistional ehmate, ess and Open Door Policy, the Special Review Panel has
"" " " N "
- P" concluded that recent reviuons to the policies have had a there is a culture within the NIM that does not want to positive effect. A tecent survey of NRC. employees (Ap-expo e any weakness or error m previous NRC decisions
- pendix D) shows that a large majority of the NIM stafP g
,g gpyfgpg are aware of the proecss :md know where to obtain addi' process seem to be widespread, and in some cases, appear tional information if needco. Ilow ever, there is still room deeply held Dowever, the Panel had little evidence or for improvement. 'some question remains as to w hether definitive hash to separate percephen from realits, and or not the NRC organuational ehmate promotes open nf rmed and independent judgment h a no of the wey nwth mnuri uw r h of twwmwl regardmg why Ihere are so few DPVs!DPOs On balance, 1
N URill-1414
the Panel believes that implosements hase been made in the Paneli judgment, puable causes of tho, lad of ocer the last twoyears and that the proper approach is to conssteng melude the following: (a)the current Mancal (a) continue to emphasiec the importance of the DPV/
Chapter is not as elcar as il could be; (b) staf f and numage.
DPO policy;(b) insist on its proper implementidion; (c) ruent has e not received training in this polie) and process; ensure that DPVr/DPOs receive a thorough, independ-(c) there is no specific point of contact to serve as an ent, and compctent teview;(d) f eward staf f and inanage-agemy espert; and (f) there have been so few ca(es that snent involved in identifying and reelewing ddficult but there is no esperience base to guide those imolved, sound issuet; and (c) continue to penodically assess the effectiveness of the program, the organitational ehmate, Anump the incont.istencies identthed to the Pant) wcre and staff and management undetstanding of the policCr.
the followmg: (a) a DPV was addtcued to the I!DO seepe, implernentation, and s esults, including the follow.
rather than to the Office thrector; (b) DPV panch were ing:
conuned that did not include a representative endorsed by the submittets;(c) a DPV was handled as if it were a
- RECOSIAIENilt110N: Continur to emphasi:e Ihr impor.
UPO: (d) a UPV was teviewed by a srecially cimslituted tance af an cEccioe rnd perictical DPl7DPD pdicy and panel rather than the standmg panel;(c)the time periods inwrporate a number ofclarifications rnd scrisions to Alan.
Fpeenhed were eseceded and delays m resolution oc-ual Chapter Jul curred;(f) DPO results were forwarded to the employ ee's l
direct supermor rather than to the sunnutter; and (g)
Permit confidentiahty but not allow anonymous sub-employec views labeled and requested to be handled as a missions. Anonymous submissions tnay be made DPV wer e in fact handled outside of the Mannal('hapter through other established channch. Such as the alle-process.
gations program and the Othee of the lospector General.
RECO3fAIEND.iT10N: Imprure manager and employe undcraanding of the DPl 7DPH pdicy and ris propa imple.
Strengthen the provision for the handhng of issues mentation through strctalinitiatires, including:
of immediate safety concern.
ProviJmy trammg to staff and manapernent ofhetals t lave the Commission and liDD provide unnmaries outh0DPViUPO PHNew of DPOs and their resulting shspositiom in the Puhhsh...g a iesised Manual Charter 4125 that dan-Weekly information 1(eport.
fies the DPV/DPO process and includes a flow chart Give ' Office Directors, Iterional Admimstrators.
diagramming the pnicew and lleview Panels specific authonty to request IJenufying the Director, 0ffice of Permonel, to technical awistance from another Of ficcillegion or from outside the agency to address a highh special-we e a Pek point, contact who can prmide i/cd iwue.
adme en We pobey and h appkahon to manapers and employees.
Specify that DPO reviews are to be conducted inde' Dicibuting a huichure to all employees that ed pendendy and to the extent possible should not m' volve individuals who have directly par temted in plams the proecss in simphfied terms.
the formtilation of the agency'.s pouti' ativ thstributing an all-employee announcement high.
sue.
lighting the imlertant changes made to the juhey as
' DOW WillL UNDliRSI OOD a result of this review and identifying the luint of contact.
FINDING: > litually allagency employn are a ware of e
OltGANI/ATIONAl CLiMATV the DPDDP0 proccu; however, procedures for ad.
drening DPI's!DPGs are not being consistently fol, FlhDING: Insile there are some indications that Ihr lowed.
NRC organizational climatefor considering dylcring professinnal ricwpoints has improred, thcre are alsn in.
The rast rnaionty of NltC cmployees (45%) know about dications that poini to wntinuing dtliciencin in the cli.
and are generally famnhar with the DPVfDPO polic).
mate; thenfure, continued dforts in this regard arc Furthermore,56% of survey respondents agrce that the needed.
DFV/DPO process is understandable. Howeser addi-1 tional efforts are needed to hipnlight the ddference be-While 2M of those who responded to the suncy bs eve tween a DPV and a DPO since 359 of the employeesare the current (hmate is favorable for espressing a ddleong -
F not aware of the difh:rence.*lhe Panel was also troubled viewpomt, a substanual number of lespondents have no by the hek of consistent handhng of the DPWand DP( A opimon(35%)or do not hnd et favorable (369 L Howeser.
NUl&G;1414
?
. - ~.
. -~
i J
this appears to be an improvement in organizational cli-Encourage attendance at courses on Effecth e 1.is-mats. (the 1987 survey indicated that approximately 50%
tening Effective Communicati(m (group and/or in-of the staff believed that filing a DPO could adversely terpersonal), and Confhet Resolution. During these affect their careers.)
courses, emphiyees should be made aware of the im-portance of professional feedback and the various Eraphryces continue to be concerned that filing a DPV/
ways t.nd means of provid.ng it to ensure that the DPO will be viewed negatively and, as a result, reprisal is agency meets its regulatory mission.
likely to occur. As reported in the employee survey, fear of reprisal was the reason most noted for lack of policy L,ontinue to periodically revi w actual rubmittals to effectiveness (19%). In addition, teveral individuals ech.
ensure ihat the prccess ts workmg as m, tended, and that indniduals raismg important issues are suitably oed this perception with comments such as " suicidal to recogm/ed and rewarded.
your career " and "ecmsidered a tr oublemaker " 1hc sec-ond most noted reason for lack of eff:ctiveness (11%)is OPEN DOOR PO!.lCY the per-eption that reviewers are predisposed to the out-cecne o, a DPV/DYO.
UNDING: A substantial number ofNRC employees are not aware nf the NRC's up ikwr Policy.
The Panel believes that many of the nerative petceptions associated with fihng a DPV/DPO can be changed over The results of the employee survey indicate that 24% of time by enlightened -ad sensitive m magement and by the respondents are not aware of the NRC Op.n Door proper implemenation of the DPV/DPO policy. Top Policy, and approximately 45% of the resp (mdentr. chose management endorsement and periodic emphasis are, of the option "no opinion" or " don't know" to answer the course, important, but perhaps more important is how remaining questions regardmg the Open Door Policy.
issues raised by the staff are andressed and handled by
- line supervi3 ors, With openness and a willingness to seri.
Those respondents in highcr levds of aanagement re-ously understand and consider differing views, and a will-port the greatest familiarity with and understanding of the ingness to change, correct, and update decisions when Open Door Policy. As reported m the survey resnits,only justified, ther e will be little need for employees to use the 2% of Assistant Directors or ahue are unaware of this DPV/DPO process.
policy with SS% somewhat or very famihar with it. On the other hand,29% of non supenisory employees are not
) urther. over time, and with contirded positive experi-aware of the polig and only 40% are somewhat or very famdiar with it.
ence with the DPV/DPO process, the negative percep, tions should stari to fade in the minds of most employees.
When compared to Ihe responses given for the DPV/ -
Thus, success in obtaining feedback and input regard ng a differing view depends on treating all professional v(iews DPO process, the perception of the Open Door Policy 's an eficctive means of expiessing a professional view is j
seriously snd on the proper implementation of the DPV/
shghtly less (37G to 39%), but the climate is perceived
. NO [ ms, more favorable (38% to 2W).
RECOh!AIENDA TION: Continue to impicment action to RECOAIA!ENDATION: Communicate to all emplayces ad-l improve the organi:ational climatefor submitting a differing ditumali+rmation on the NRC Open Ihwr Policy as one ofa prt@ssional viewpoint, number of options for expresdng pwfessional views.
Reinforce the imnortanu of the DPV/DPO poliev Issue an all-employec announcement explaining the during confereaces, office workshops. and staf'f NRC Open Door Pohc) as one of several avenues meetings. and emphasize that DPVs/DPos can con, hn providing NRC emph>yees with a means for ex-i
- tribute to the accomplishment of the agency's mis-pressmg a professional view. Other avenues should sion.
also be highlight ed including (a) discussions with im, mediate supenisors. (b) discussions with higher level managers within the employee's Office. (c) in-
. Emphasize to superusors that there is no negative clusion of separate points of view in staff papers.and
~
connotation associated with one of their employees (d) as appropriate, discussions with other NRC Of-submitting a DPV/DPO. and note the importance of fices includine the Office of the In3pector General proper and timely processing of such views.
or the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
Emphasize to all employees that there may be seri.
Discuss during ir -house courses, includmg manage-ous consequenec; to the public and the N RC for r,ot rial traming, the Open Door Policy and other op-l correcting erroneous, outdated, or restricted posi.
tions available to agency employees i ir expressing tions.
professional views.
l-3 NURiiG-lel4
. _ _ _. _._ _ _ - - _. ~. ~. _.
in addition, the Special Review Panel was asked to iden.
After the draft questionnaire wa
-, ped, the Special tify employees whose DPV/DPO made a significant con-Review Panel maJe modificatiuc, and approved the
- tribution to the agency and public health and safcty but document.
were not adequately recognized for their contribution. At the time of the PanePs review, four of the DPVs/D,POs The survey was distributed to all non clerical employees filed were not complete 'lherefore, the Panel concluded in headquarters and all five regions (approximately 2$00 that consideration for recognition in those cases should be NRC emplcyees). Anonymity was guaranIced to all re.
defe:Ted. Three other DPVs/DPGs had been fully con-sptmdenk.
sidered and resolved. 'Ihe Panel concluded that special recognition was not warrrnteo in those cases.
A total of 1282 -questionnaires were returned and tabu-lated by the Atlantic Research Corporntion of Washing-ton D.C. Frequencies and percentages for each question MetNdology (along with cross dassifications by demographic mforma-3 tion and a brief narrative)are available from the Office of The Panel's far. dings and recommendations provided in Personnel.
this report are based primrily on four sources ofinforma-tion: (1) the results of an NRC employee survey address-Panel Inteniews ing perceptions of the NRC's Differing Professional Views or Opinions Policy and Open Door Polig, (2)
Prior to conducting the inten iew s, questions were drafted
' Panel intenicM wdh Review Panel Chairpersons and and later modified by the Special Review Panel. Speedic submitters of DPVs/DPGs (Apper'ix E); (3) background questions were asked of Region and Office Review Panel occuments on the DPV/DPO proc.., and its use; and (4)
Chairpersons, and similar questions were asked of DPV/
person:1 knowledge and experience from Panel mem.
DPG submitters. Inteniews were designed to specifiatlly bers' involvement in the process.
address the experience and possible concerns of the indi-vidual.
-Employee Survey Most imerviews were conducted by telephone with all Panel members in attendance. (Note: one mteniew was
^
To gather information from agency employees, the Panel conducted in person and two interviews were conducted used an apney surveyflhe specifics of the survey proces' with three members of the Panel.) A summary of these are discussed bdow.-
interviews is provided in Appendn it Basic demographic information, perceptions of the cur-13ackground Documents and Guidelines rent DPV/DPO processiand perceptions of the Open Door Policy were identified as content areas to be in-Ihe Panel review ed a number of documents on the DPV/
cluded in the survey. For the purposes of this study, DPO praess, including the previous assessment and -
demographic information was collected on the respon.
documentation regarding the use of the process.laese
-dent's current classification e d the office or re; ion in documents provided input for assessing the degree to which the respondent works. he principal focus of the which the current pohey is being properly implemented, survey was to gainci informasior on the effecti"eness, the degree of improvement that has occurred since the-understandability, and organisional climate of the last assessment, and the specific changes that could be DPV!DPO proce=; and Open Door Pohg.
made to improve the process.
NURiiG-1414 -
4
... - ~
,s' k
. -eicwS9 #
s e, e *, s,' * -,198SI
\\
/
U.S. NtJCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC MANU AL Volume: 4000 Personnei OP Part 4100 Federal CHAPTER 4125 DIFFERING PROFESSION AL VIEWS OR OPINIONS 4125-01 COVERAGE This chapter and its appendix cover NRC policy, objectives, proceoures.
responsibilities, and otrer basic requirements and definitions establishec :o provide for the expression anc resolution of differing professional views or
=
opinions concerning matters related to the agency's mission.
Issues that do not qualify as differing professional views or opinions incluce that are or could have been oppropriately addressed under grievance those procedares or under other oe?sonnel appeal procedures, or are otherwise spe-cifically governed by law or government-wide regulation; issues that are sub-ject to collective bargaining; issues involving allegations of wrongdoing 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 otherwise not in accercance with the policy underlying these procedures; and issues raised by an employee that already have been considered, addressed or rejectec pursuant to this chapter absent significant new information.
4125-02 POLICY AND OBJECTIVES An informal as well as a formal process for considering the differing pro-fessional views of employees is establiched for issues directly related to the mi:sion of the NRC. Issues raised through the informal process are reviewed within the Office or Region having responsibility for the issue.
it is intended ta Although the informal process may appear to be structured, be a vehicle for the promot, non-confrontational consideration of issues by an impartial review panel, inciependent of an employee's direct supervisors, with a minimum of documentation. if the employee is not satisfied with the disposition of the issue through the informal p roc <tss, he/she may file a Professional Opinion (DPO) with the EDO if working in an office Differing reporting to the FOO, 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 Policy. 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 prevailing staff professional judgments even though they may differ from a view, disagree with a management decision or policy position, or take issue Approved:
September 30, 1988 M !RI E 1414 St
N R C -4125-022 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS with proposed or established agency practices.
Each differing professional view of ' an NRC employee will be evaluated on its own meri.t.
It is not~ only the right but the duty of all NRC employees, including man-agers, 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
.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 espress differing p rof essional views in good f aith, to _ have these views heard and considered by NRC management, and te be protected against retaliation in any form.
022 Obiectives.
a.
To establisn an informa! process for expressing differing p ro-fessional views and a formal process for expressing DPOs.
b.
To provide recognition to the originators of differing professional views or opinions if thi
- ontribute significantl\\ to achieving the agency's mission.
c.
To - provide for periodic assessment, as necessary, to ensure that implementation of these procedures accomplishes the stated obiet-tives and to recommend appropriate changes.
4125-03 RESPONStBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES 031 The Commission:
Refers DPOs to the appropriate Office Director or Regional.Adt. tin-a.
istrator for review if they have not gone through the informal review process, b.
Utilizes the _ appropriate qualified sources inside _ or outside the-NRC to assist in ~ reviewing the DPO.
c.
Determines the disposition of... issues submitted to the Commission as DPOs. _ Such disposition includes rejection-of -matters which do - not qualify as OPOs, as stated in 4125-01, or as defined in 041 of this chapte r.-
_d.
Provides the originator.or the manager who forwar.1ed a DPO with a y;
disposition and rationale for that disposition, e.
- To. reduce the administrative - burden aract resource expend?.ures,
maintains _ 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 reviews and modifies as necessary the informal and formal processes for resolving differing professional views and opinions based on recommendations of the EDO and the DPO Special Review Panel.
Approved: September 30, 1988-NUR EG-1414 AC
OlFFERING PP.0FESSIONAL. VIEWS OR OPINIONS N R C - 4125-032 032 The Executive Director for Operations (EDO):
Refers DPOs to the appropriate Office Director or Regional Admin-a.
istrator for review if they have not gone through the informal review process.
b.
Utilizes the appropriate qualified sources inside or outsice the NRC to assist in reviewing the DPO.
Determines the disposition of issues submitted to the EDO as DPos.
c.
Such disposition includes rejection of matters which do not qut!,fy as a DPO, as stated in 4125-01, or as defincd in 041 of this chapter.
d.
Provides the originator or the manager who forwarded a DPO with a disposition and a rationale for that dispositi:n.
e.
To reduce the administrative burdens and resource expenditure, maintains only the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate rtcord of the formai proceedings. Sends all completed DPO case flie:S t6 the Office of Personnel, f.
Periodically appoints members, as necessary, to a DPO Specia' Review Panel after censulta' ion with the Chairman, Reviews the report of the DPO Special Review Panel and makes rec-g.
ommendations to the Commission as necessary.
033 Directors of AEOD, NMSS, NRR. RES, OSP and Regional AG inistrators; a.
A nnually 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 Sta.iding Review Panel for detailed review, c.
Determine the disposition of issues submitted as differing profess-ional views. Such disposition includes rejection of ma tts"-
Aicn do not qualify as differing professional views as stated in U25-01, or as defined in 042 of this chapter.
d.
Provide the EDO or Commission (through the F OO '; a statement of views on the disposition of referred DPO statements _.
Provide the originator or the manager who forwarded a differing pro-e.
fessic.1al 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 assnssment is completed by the DPO Special Review Panel.
Approved: September 30, 1988 AO N L W l E~ M la
l NRC 4125-034 DIFFERING P_ROFESSION AL VIEWS OR OPINIONS 034 Office or Region Standing Review Panel:
-a; Reviews all signed or unsigned written statements of differing professional views or opinions for issues within the Of fice's or Region's areas of responsibility, b.
Reviews those OPOs, that have not gone through the informal review process.
c.
Determines whether - suffic ent document 6 tion was provided by the submitter of a diffe-ing. professional view or opinion to undertake a detailed review.
-d.
Makes - recommendations to the Office Director or Regional Admin-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 asian assessment is completed by the DPO Special Review Panel.
-b.
Ensures all DPCs and their-dispositions are disseminated ano/or made available to - the public in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
c.
Includes a summary _of the issue anc its disposition in the Weekly Information Report.
d.
JAdministratively assists the DPO Special Review Panel, 036 Manaaers and Suoervisors:
~
a'.
Advise and ' assist employees _in administratively preparing adequate-written statements of differing professional views or opinions.
.b.
In consultation with-their ' managers,. determine the amount' of the
-originator's kork time and administrative support to be' provided in
- response to the originator'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 -submitting -a signed or un-signed statement of differing professional view or opinion when appropriate.
-038 - DPo special Review Panel:
a.
Periodically assesses, as necessary, the informal and formal p roc-esses l for ' dealing with differing professional views and opinions,
'inclu: ling the effe::tiveness of the processes, how well they are
- Approved : ' September. 30, 1988 NURIL-i414 A-4
OlFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS N RC-4125 04 understood by employees, and the organizational climate for having these views or opinions aired and properly decided.
b.
Based on this assessment, prepares a report to the EDO that identi-fies appropriate actions to assure the proper functioning of tr'is activity.
c.
Reviews differing professional views and opinions submitted since the last review to identify employees whose differing professional view s or opinions mace significant contributions to the agency or to public health and safety but had not been property or adequately recognized for this contribution.
4125-04 DEFINITIONS 041 Differing Professional Opinion.
Definition is the same as for a differing professional view, except that a differing professional opinien is submitted directly to the EDO or the Commission (depending on the source of the DPO) either initially,
or, after an Office / Regional decision on a previously submitted differing professional view.
042 Differino Professional View.
A conscientious expression of pro-fessional judgment whicn, on any matter directly related to NRC's mission of licensing and regulating nuclear facilities and materials, differs from if'e prevailing 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 submittad in a written statement (signed or unsigned) to an Office Director or Regi. t al Administrator, depending on the issue (s) raised, and may involve _technicai, legal or policy issues.
043 Retaliation.
Retaliation 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 051 Acolicabilitv.
Procedures for tne expression and resolution of differing professional views or opinions apply to all NRC employees including supervisors and managers. The procedures supplement other stated rights,
duties, ano safeguards applicable to all Federal employees who make their views known either within or outside their agencies, including:
the independent right of f ree speech provided by the First Ame.nd-a.
ment to the U.S. Constitution.
b.
the right of government employees to petition the Congress (5 USC 7102).
the rights of employees to communicate directly with the Cor,gress as c.
outlined in the Code of Ethics for Government Service (10 C F R 0.735 - At nex A).
Approved: September 30, 1988 f\\ d M '141 -( 1 - 14 ! 4
i NRC-4125 052 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS
-d.
provisions of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act dealing with p ro-hibited personnel practices and the regulations of the Merit System Protection Board.
052 Appendix 4125. This appendix provides procedures for the expres-sion and-disposition of differing professional views and opinions.
4 I
. Approved: September-30,-1988-NUllEG.1414 A4
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEVS OR OPINIONS NRC Appendix 4125 CONTENTS Page 1
A.
Introduction.....................................................
B.
Informal Process for Fxpressing Differing Professional Views..
1 C.
Formal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Opinions...
3 0.
Resources to Assist Originators of Differing Professional Views 5
or 0 pinions..........................
5 E.
OP0 Special Review Panel.................
F.
Use of 'rocedures for Differing Professional Views or Opinions...
5 G.
Prevention of Retaliation Against Individuals Who Express or Support Differing Professional Views or Opinions...............
6 i
Approved: September 30, 1988 A-7 NUltl!G-1414
-m OlFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRL Appendix 4125 J
PROCEDURES FOR THE EXPRESSION AND DISPOSITION OF DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS AND OPINIONS A.
Introduction l
la the free and open discussion of work matters, professional differenres
- of opinion are common. Employees normally try, and are encouraged, to resolve their concerns through discussions with their co-workers anc immediate supervisors, in some cases, such discussions may had to the submission of a suggestion as part of the NRC Suggestion Program (Chap-ter NRC-4154).
Such differences of opinion, developed in the free and open discussion of work matters, become. differing professional views or opinions only when the' originators bring them to NRC management attention in accord-ance with these procedures.
In these cases, informal discussions may - not resolve _ the matters and an employee may be convinced that the agenev and thp public would be bet-ter served.if another opinion prevailed. To further pursue such matters using these procedures, an employee should submit a written statement (signed or unsigned) of differing professional view or. opinion 'in accordance with these procedures. An employee may not use these proce-dures without submitting a written statement, With-the submission of a written statement to. the EDO _ or Commission (formal process), the employee's differing view becomes a differing professional opinion (DPO).
l-L-
In addition to. the procedures contained in this Manual Chapter, individ-L ual employees are permitted to document' their differing. professional
,~
views and attach-them to proposea staff position or other documents, to be forwarded! with the position as it moves through the management l.
approval chain, Individual employees are strongly encouraged to discuss L
their_ differing professional views within _ the chain of authority, _. espe-l cially with their im_ mediate : supervisors, as a - first step in resolving l
differing professional views. No record keeping or documentation of this discussion is required.
t
'B.
Informal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views
- 1. -
A; Standing - Review Panel (panel) will be permanently established in 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 _ rejection of the differing professional view. The panel - will document its review findings and make recommendations to the. Regional Administrator or Office Director, as appropriate.
2.
The p'anels, formally appointed in writing for one year by the Regional Administrator or Office Director, should be chaired by the Deputy Regional Administrator, Deputy Office Directer, or equivalent official. Each panel will include the Chair (and_ alternate) and or.e other member (and alternate) appoir,ted by management. Additionally, the individual employee submitting a differing professional view may 1
Approved: September 30, 1988 NURl!G-1414 A-8
NRC Aopendix 4125 OlFFERING PROFESSION Al. VIEWS OR OPINIONS 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 the views of experts knowledgeable of the issue (s) raised, if appropriate.
3.
Th: informal review process is initiated by a written statement.
(signed or unsigned) that is submitted to the RegioncI Administrato?
or Office Director who will then forwaro it to the panei within five calendar days.
The signed or unsigned written statement while being brief, must in 4.
all cases include the following:
a.
a summary of the originator's perception of the prevailing 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 iteins discussed in a. above.
c.
a statement of the originator's assessment of the resulting consequences if the differing professional view is not adopted by the agency.
5.
If an employee wishes to have his or her views considered as a cif-fering professional view but desires confidentiality, the employee may submit an unsigned statement of differing professional view to a manager who would be willing to forward it to the apprcpriate of ficial. Disposition of the differing professional view will then be completed in accordance 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 who forwarded the differing professional view cases, the manager shall relay to the originator both the acknowledgeme'it of receipt and all reports received by that manager concerning its disposi-tion or resolution.
The panel should normally review the differing professional view 6.
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 centact the employee or the manager who forwarded the differing professional view if additional information is needed.
7.
Once the panel has received tha necessary information to begin a review, the panel should normally take no more than 30 calendar i
Approved: September 30, 1988 2
A9 NUlt! G - 1414
l OlFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS NRC Appendix 4125 days to make a reccmmendation to the Regional Administrator or Office Diret. tor.
8.
The Regional Administrator or Office Director should revic a the panel recommendation and provide the concerned employee or the manager who forwarded the differing professionfi view with a dis-position and rationale of that disposition of the issue. Normally, this should occur within seven calendar days aO.er res. eipt of tM panel's recommendation. A summary of the issue and its 11isposition will be included in the Weekly information Report. Other dissemina-tion ~ as appropriate, should br. made by Regions / Offices to advise interested employees of the outcome.
1 9.
Extenuating circumstances may cause delays in con,.;uding the informal process, Notice of delays should be communicated. to the submitter, or in the event of an unsigned statement, communicated to the manager who forwarded the differing professional view. Offices and Regions are expected to expedite the disposition r
- differing professional views. If the review and office-level disposition of the differing professional view does not occur within 60 c.alendar days from the date of receip'. by the Office Director or Regional Administrator, the reason for delay should be reported to the EDO or Commission, as approp iate.
10.
Those involved in
.h e 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 ettention of higher management, 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 rec-ords should-be maintained and available only within the Region or Office.
12; - Certain types of -issues arc 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'Expressina Differing 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 su' omit their DPO to the EDO. Employees in of fices. reporting to the Chairman or Commission shall submit their DPO to the Commission.
3 Approved: September 30, 1988 I
l NtJRiiG-1414 g gi)
NRC Appendix 4125 DIFFERING PROFESSION AL VIEWS OR OPINIONS 2.
For guidance on written statements and the desire for confidential-ity of differing professional opinion, refer to Section B, items 4 and 5. DPO submittals must also include any informal process dis-position of the issue.
3.
If the EDO or Commission receives a DPO that has not gone through the informal review process, the EDO or Cammission snalt forwarc it within five calendar days to the appropriate Office Director or Regional Administrator. Offices and Regions will then operate uncer the provisions of Section B.
4.
if, after the Office or Region review, the originator is satisfico that the matter is settled, a copy of the disposition will be sent to the EDO or Commission (as appropriate). The case file will be retained in the Office or Region. If the matter is not settled 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 has the option to use other qualified sources inside and outside the NRC to assist in reviewing the issue.
6.
The EDO or Commission (as appropriate) should review the views of the Office Director or Regional Administrator, Standing Review Panet and any other source whose review was solicited. The ECO or Com-mission (as appropriate) will provide the concerned empicyee with a disposition and rationale of that disposition of the issue.
Normally, this should occur within 30 calendar cays after receipt of all solicited views requested by the EOO 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 unsigned 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 a: curate record of the proceedng; 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 Repart; and which will make the file or portions of the file available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of information Act.
9.
Those involved in the formal review process shall give priority handling to issues involving immediate or significant health and 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 OPO as stated in 4125-01 or as defined in 041 ef this chapter.
l Approved: September 30, 1988 4
l A-11 N Ul<l l ',- 14 l a
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS
' NRC Appendix 412_5_.
11, Once a final decision is rendered on a -DPO o r the EDO or Commis-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 addressed absent significant new information.
D.
Resources to Atsist Orioinators of Differino Professional Views or Ooinions 4
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 adrainistrative suo-port. If called to testify before a Licensing Board or an Appeal Boaco, the errpioyee may receive, upon request, assistance from the legal, staff in preparing testimony or other documents to be filed with the Board.
Such assistance will be solely for the purpose of facilitating the fit-ing of the necessary documents and will not constitute legal representa-tion of the emoloyee by the legal staff, The originator's immediate supervisor, in consultation with his or her manager, will determine the amcunt of the originator's work time and administrative support to be prcsided in response to the originator's request for assistance.
E.
DPO' Special Review Panet A DPO. Special Review Panel ( Review Panel) - will periodically assess, as necessary, the informal and fortaal processes for dealing with differ-ing professional views or opinions, including the effectiveness of the l
processes, how_ well they are understood by employees, and the organi-23tional climate for having these views or opinions aired and procerly decided. Members of the Review Panel will be appointed by the EDO af ter consultation with the Chairman, The 7 Review Panel will ' prepare a report based on this assessment which
-i will.be submitted to the EDO for consideration. The report will also be i
distributed to all employees. The EDO will forward the report with any comments or recommended changes to the Commission for approval _,
I
'In addition, the Review Panel will review differing professional views
.and opinions : on any ' matter relating to the agency's mission submitted
- since the last review to identify employees whose differing professional views - or ~ opinions made sig,ificant contributions to the agency or to public health ? and. ' safety but have not been adequately recognized for 4
this contribution. Wnen award recommendations have not been made, they may be made by the Review Panel in accordance with provisions of NRC's incentive Awards Program (Chapter N R C-4154 ). Recommendations for awards will be included in the Review Panel's report.
i F.
Use of Procedures for Differino Professional Views or Opinions
_ These procedures were developed to assure NRC employees are able to i
i freely express ' their differing views or opinions as defined in 041 and 042 _of this chapter and to underscore management's intention to address i
these concerns in a timely, responsible manner. These procedures should S
Approved: September 30, 1988 i
I
- NUlt!!G-1414 g
NRC Appendix 4125 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS be used by all NRC employees with integrity and in accordance with the stated procedures.
G.
Prevention of Retaliation Acainst individuals Who Exoress or Succort Dif f ering Prof essional Views or Openions Any NRC employee who retaliates against another employee for st. omitting or supnorting a dif f ering professional view or opinion is subject to disciplinary action in accordance with Chapter N R C - 4171, "Discioline, Adverse Actions and Separations." This applies to retaliatory actions as defined in this Manual Chapter and to all prohibited personnel practices specified in Section 2302, Title 5, U.S.
Code. as amendeo by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
Employees wno allege that retaliatory actions have been taken because of their submissior or support of a differing professional view or opinion tray seek redreC through the negotiated grievance procedure or througn the grievance procedure described in Chapter N R C - 4157, " Employee Grievances. "
s Approved:
September 30, 1988 6
A-B Nt. m a, lata
APPENDIX B Manual Chapter 4126 (as approved September 30,1988)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC MANUAL Volume: 4000 Personnel OP Part 4100 Federal CHAPTER 4126 OPEN DOOR POLICY 4126 01 COVERAGE This chapter and its appendix cover NRC policy, objectives, procedures, and responsibilities related to the expression of views directly to agency man-agers at all levels through the Open Door policy. It applies to all agency employees, including agency managers and supervisors.
4126-02 POLICY AND OBJECTIVES 021 Policy.
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 open exchange of views or ideas conducted in a non-threatening environment provides the ideal forum in which concerns and be considered and addressed in an efficient and timely alternative views can manner, much to the benefit of the agency and the public.
Individual NRC employees are expected to communicate their views and con-cerns with their immediate supervisors on a regular, ongoing basis. On occasion, however, employees 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.
022 Obiectives.
a.
To provide NRC employees with a channel for communicating concerns or issues directly to all levels of responsible agency officials.
Ls To prot ect employees wno use the Open Door policy from retaliation in any 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 and Regional personnel of fices to include an overview of the Open Door policy in the orientation for new employees.
1 Approved: Septemoer 30, 1988 N URl G-1414 lbl
- ~. - -.. -. _ -.
' NRC-026-032 OPEN DOOR POUCY
-032 Managers and supervisors:
a.
Snould, to the extent practicable, consider ar.d address 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 retaliatory action against any emoloyee solely because. that employee utilized or supported another employee who utilized the Open Door policy.
- However, this does not preclude supervisors from initiating,
- pursuing,
' or - continuing to pursue unrelated personnel actions affecting employees who have used the Open Door policy-.
033 All employees:
a.
Are expected.to communicate their views and concerns to their immediate _ 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 Manager / supervisor.
An emploiee who directs the work of an organization, is hela accountable for specific line or staff programs or activities, or. whose primary duties are managerial or supervisory.
042 Ooen Door. The availability of all levels of NRC managemsnt to (neet with employees. to discuss and attempt to resolve issues and concerns.
043 R etaliation. ' Retaliation consists of any injurious actions taken against the errployee_ because-of the employee's expression or support of a
- concern, 4126-05.
BASIC REQUIREMENTS 051' Apolicability. These procedures for ~ the expression and resolution of employee concerns are for the use of all NRC ernployees including managers and supervisors.
052 Apoendix 4126. :This appendix provides guidance for the expression of. concerns under tne Open Door policy.
Approved: September 30, 1988 N tJRiiG-1414 gg
OPEN DOOR POLICY NRC Appencis 4126 OUlDANCE 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 Chairmm of NRC, te discuss any matter of concern to the empicy ee.
An empioy ee may request an Open Door meeting directly with the selected manager or supervisor without the approval of intermeciate management.
An employee's request for confidentiahty will normally be honored by the manager or sucervisor contacted under the Open Door poucy except when the manager contacted is an NRC Commissioner.
Each Commissioner is legally required to inform all other Commissioners of any informa-tion believed to be related to the responsibility or the function of the Commission.
(This requirement for mancator y information sharing applies only to the Commissioners and does not extend to others within NRC. ) Subject to this cons t raint, an employee's request for confiden-tiailty made in cc7nection with communications under the Open Door policy will normally be honored by the NRC manager unless (1 ) as a practical matter it is imoossible to convey the substance of the in-formation without making know n the identity of the employce, (2) cis-closure of the employee's identity is essential for determination of the accuracy and reliability of the information, or (3) the employee's identity is required to be released by law.
Managers and supervisors contacted will work to resolve an employee's
- concerns, to answer any question s,
and to honor a request for confidentiality.
Honoring a request for confidentiality may, hcwever, limit a
manager's or supervisor's ability to provide assistance or advice anc counsel on matters of concern to the employee.
Managers and supervisors should also advise emcloyees of other channels to be used for the resolution of concerns such as NRC Manual Cnapters 7
4125 (Differing Professional Views or Opinions), 4156 ( Appeals from Adverse Actions), anc 4157 ( Employee Griev ances ). If the contacted manager or supervisor believes that others should be notified of issues raised in these Open Door ciscus sions,
he/she should notify the responsible offices (e.g., the Office of Inspector and Auditor).
B.
Advisorv Committees if the issue raised under the Open Door policy relates to a potential safety issue within the purview of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ( ACRS) ce the Advisory Committee i.a Nuclear Waste ( ACNW),
an NRC employee may ccmmunicate orally or in writing directly with the Chairman er any memoer of the appropriate committee. Such ccmmuni-cation may iticlude a recuest for confidentiality.
A pp roved : Sectember 30, 1958 l
1 li-3 NL!lllle-lJ14
. ~.
-.. ~
.. =
-NRC Appendi A 4126 OPEN DOOR POLICY An' NRC employee ' may also : appear before the ~ ACRS or ACNw or a subcommittee as deemed appropriate by the committee. The ACR5 or ACNW will assure that lssues raised under the Open Door policy are forwarded
. to_-the responsible. NRC office director-for infor mation anc/or action, as appropriate.
-C.
Use c' the Open Door Policy The Ocen. Door policy was - adopted to foster an atmosphere of open and free communication ~ 'within the agency and underscore management's intention to - consider and address those issues and concerns brougnt to
- them, The Open Door policy should be used by all NRC employees with i
integrity and for the stated purposes.
D.
Prevention of Retaliation Acainst Anv Empfovee for Expressing or SuDporting Those Who Express Concerns Under the Open Door Policy Any NRC employee who retaliates ;against another empinyee for expressing or supporting'those expressine concerns under a,.an Door policy is subjec' to disciplinary action -- in accordance with. NRC Manual Chapter 4171 - (Discipline, Adverse - Actions and Separations).
This _ applies _ to retaliatory actions ' and to ali prohibited personnel practices specified in Section 2302, Title 5, _ U.S.- Code.
- Employees who allege that retaliatory actions have been taken because of j
' their expression or support of a concern under the Open Door pcUcy may
-saek redress? through other channels, such as. the negotiated grievance
- procadure or through the formal grievan:e procedure described in NRC
' Manual Chapter 4157 (Employee Grievances) _
l 1
'l 1
Approved: September 30, 1938 NUREG-1414 -
B -4
=
APPENDIX C Special Review Panel Charter
f#p assgg UNITED $TATES 83 wfa NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS510N l
u s m oten.o.c.2 zss
{ g.gj/
DEC t a 1999
$f..C7 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Paul E. Bird, Director Offite of Personnel FRCM:
James M. Taylor Executive Directer for Operations
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROTESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIGHS SPEC *AL REVIEW PANEL SECT remorandum date: June 21, 1988, subject, COMLI-88-24/24A - CCMSE;Y-58 a, DIFTERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS, states:
"A re m w of the effectiveness cf the new (DFO) procecures should be concucted after they have been in effect for ene year." Similarly, POLICY ISSUE (Negative Consent), SECY-88-215, catec July 26,1938, subject, COMLZ-88-24/24A - COMSECY-BS-4, DIFFERING PROFE33IONAL GPINIONS, states: "Atter the manual chapters (MC 4125 anc MC 4125) have teen published and in effect for one year, a Differing Professional Opinions (CPO)
Special Review Panei will be convened to review the effectiveness of the new procedures." Since NRC Manual Chapters 4125, Differing Professional Views er Opinions, and 4125, 0:en Door Policy, were implemented on Septemoer 30, '955, it is time to appoint a new Special Review Panel to review the effect;veness of the new procecures. In'orcer to concutt such a review, I am cesignating you as chairman of t e Ptnel as called for in Manual Chapter 4125. The Panei enoulo include the fellowing memoers:
Management Memoer Clemens J. Heltemes Regional Memoer John M. Montgomery (Tobedetermineal Unson Memoer In accordance with Sect en E of HRC Appendix 4125, the Panel should assess the informal and formal processes for dealing with differing professional views er opinions, inciuding tne effectiveness of the processes, how well they are uncerstood by employees, and the organizational climate for having thesE views or opinions aired anc properly deciced. The provisions of MC 4125, Open Door Policy, should also be addressed in this assessment.
In addition, the Review Panel will review differing professional views and opinions on any matter relating to the agency's mission submitted since the last review to identify employees whose differing professional views or opinions made significant contribution to the agency or to public health and safety but have not been adequate 1y recognizec for this contribution.
~
C-1 N URiiG-1414
2 The results of the Panel's evaluation should be submittee to me in the form of a report, including proposed revisions to the Manual Chapters, if any, and award recernmencations, if an/, by Maren 16,1990, unless an extension of time is necessary,
/
/ f aies M. Taypt
.Edecutive 01 rector for Operations cc:
E. Jordan, AE00 C. Heltemes, AE00 R. Mart 1n, RIY J. Montgomery, RIV J. Thomas, NTEU l
l NUREG-1414 gg
APPENDIX D Survey Ques *ionnaire
g "'%g%
UNITED STATES Ji NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION is ' h"^di usmNaton o c ross
\\*
/
FEB 2 7 q' MEMORANDUM FOR:
NRC Professional Staff FROM:
James H. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
EVALVATION OF THE NRC POLICIES FOR EXPRESSING A DIFFERING VIEWPOINT (MC-4125/MC-4126)
The purpose of the attached questionnaire is to obtain your views about the effectiveness of NRC's Differing Professional Views or Opinions and Open Door Policies (MC-4125/MC-4126).
The results of this questionnaire will be used to evaluate the current processes.
This questionnaire has been endorsed by both NRC management and the National Treasury Employee's Union (NTEU), Your responses are anonymous, and no information will be available as to who did or did not respond to the questionnaire. Your completed questionnaire will be available only to those individuals directly responsible for tabulating the responses.
Your views on this subject are very important to ensure that these policies remain a valuable and viable technique for expressing professional opinions.
Please fold, staple, and return your completed questionnaire to Mail Stop W-316, Office of Personnel.
Completed questionnaires must be returned by March 12, 1990.
/l
-W&
[Mxe..e:s:e M. _691or 1
cutive Director for Operations Attachments:
As stated D-1 NURliG-1414
l WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE NRC STAFF FEELS FREE TO COMMUNICATE THEIR PROFESSIONAL VIEWPOINTS AND WHETHER THERE IS GENERAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE INFORMAL AND FORMAL MEANS TO ASSURE THAT SENIOR MANAGEMENT KNOWS ABOUT AND CONSIDERS A DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWPOINT ASSOCIATED WITH TECHNICAL, LEGAL OR POLICY ISSUES.
THIS SECTION Of THE QUESTIONNAIRE ADDRESSES YOUR OPINIONS REGARDING THE NRC POLICY FOR EXPFiSSING A DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW (DPV) OR DIFFERING PROFESS 10RAL OPINION (DPO).
PLEASE CIRCLE THE LETTER OF THE ANSWER THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR R'.SPONSE.
1.
I am currently classified a.
In a non-supervisory role.
b.
As a Section Chief or other first line supervisor, c.
As a Branch Chief.
d.
As an Assistant Director or higher.
t 2.
Where do you work?
Commissioner's Office or Commission Level Staff Office (ACRS, ASLBP, a.
ASLAP, 0GC, SECY, IG, GPA, LSS) b.
EDO Staff Office (OEDO, OC, ADM, OP, OSDBU/CR, OE, CONS, 01, IRM) c.
AE0D d.
NRR-e.
NMSS f.
RES g.
Region I h.
Region 11 1.
Region III j.
Region IV k.
Region V 3.
How familiar are you with the goals and objectives of the NRC's Differing Professional View (DPV) or Differing Professional Opinion (DP0) policy?
a.
Very familiar b.
Somewhat familiar c.
Limited familiarity, but know where to obtain the information d.
I am not aware of this NRC policy.
NURIRI-1414 D-2
-4.
The NRC process for submitting a DPV/DP0 is understandable, a.
Strongly Agree b.
Agree c.
No Opinion d.
Disagree e.
Strongly Disagree S.
How familiar are you with the difference between the process for submitting a DPV and a _DPO?
a.
Very familiar b.
Somewhat familiar c.
l.imited familiarity, but know where to obtain the information d.
I am not aware of the difference.
6.
In your opinion, does the DPV/DP0 process provide an effective means-for NR' employees to express differing professional views or opinions?
t-I a.
Yes i
b.
No c.
Don't know 6a.
If you answered no to Question 6, was it because you felt:
a.
The process is cumbersome or would take too long, b.
You would be viewed negatively by your peers.
c.
You would be concerned about reprisal, d.
The reviewers are predisposed to the outcome, e.
Other (please explain):
7.
Overall, the organizational climate for using the DPV/DP0 process at the NRC is favorable,
- a. Strongly Agree
- b. Agree
- c. No Opinion-
- d. Disagree e.- Strongly Disagree D-3 NURIiG-1414
f 1His SEC110N Of THE QUESTIONNAIRE ADDRESSES YOUR OPINIONS REGARDING THE HRC OPEN 000R PO!,1CY.
AGAlk, ? LEASE CJACLE THE LIIIIS OF THE ANSWER-THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR RESPONSE.
8.
How familiar are you rith the goals and objectives of the NRC Open Door Policy?
a.
Very familiar b.
Some f amilic?ity c.
Limited f amiliarity, but know where to obtain the information d.
I am not aware of this policy at the NRC.
9.
Appropriate use of the iRC Open Door Policy is e. lear, a.
Strongly Agree b.
Agree c.
No Opinion d.
Disagree Strongly (,isagree e.
10.
In y. e opinion, does the Open Door Policy provide an ef fective means for NRC employees to express themselves professionally on matter: of importance?
a.
Yes b.
No c.
Don't know 11.
Overcil, the organizational climate for using the Open Door Policy at
. the NRC is favorable.
- a. Strongly Agree
- b. Agree
- c. No Opinion
- c. Disagree
- e. Strongly Disagree 4.
PLEASE FOLD,. STAPLE, AND RETURN YOUR COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO Mall STOP W 314, OFilCE Of PERSONNEL.
COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES HOST BE RETURNED BY MARCH 12, 1990.
NURl!G-1414 191
APPENDIX E Interview Questions and Results
INTEltVIEW QUESTIONS AND IEStJill'S A
What surgesnorm.or wmments do you have to mate A.
Interviews With Itegion und Office
'h' ' ' PV '" P" P'"f ' d * ""' ' 'I I"'i "' b'"
lleview Panel Chairpersons understood.
Dul the Olkce give any remgmtion to any mdtvidu-A Putpose und Scope als using the DPV/DPO procew?
To assess the overall effectiveness of the Ddfering Professional Views (DPV) and Differmg Professional SummiUY of Respottses Opinions (DPO) process, the Panel mterviewed the nine 1.
llave any D?Vs been b rought to your a:tentioe since Office and llegion Standmg Review Panel Chairpersons September 30,1988? li so, how many?
to ascertain the level of DPV/DPO activity since the ! ;
revision of Manual Chapter 4125. 'the interviews were live of the nine represcatatives re orted no DPV designed to gain insights on how well the proecu was activity nnte September 30.19K8.'lhree steted that working, how it could be improved, and to determine if they had one DPV brought to their atternion, and any indwiduals using the DPV/DPO proccu were given one reprtaentative stated that two weie brought to recognition.
his attent on.
'Ihc Special Renew Panel ident hed a total of seun L
How many, if any, were not tesol"ed as DPVs and, DPV/DPO submittals w hich have been receis ed since the therefore, were or are being pio
.ed as DPGs.
last Special Review Panel meeting. Of these, one submit-tal inwived an investigatory matter and another wauuN Sesen representatives reported no DPO actisity.
mined late in the Panel's proceedmgs; therefore, Tw o r epresentatives repot ted unresolved DPVs t hat inteniews were not wnducted with the submitters of were bemp adJ es'rd as DPGs. ( An additional OPO these two submittals. Three of the seven submi tals are was not addussed as a DPVJ t
still under review and were not considered for awards by the Special iteview Panel.
3.
Ilow easy was the procew to me?
I h e representatives had no wmment in resptmse to In summary, the status of the seven submittals is as fol.
this question as they had httle or no esperience using lows: one was submittad anony mously and was considered the process. The other four representalises stated y
using the DPV proecss, two wcre consider ed on the basis that they believed the proceu worked well, of the DPV process, two were considered r. DPW and are now being addressed as DPGs, one is seing handled 4.
Did the procedures allow the issue to be handled in a directly as a DPO anc was not r eview ed as a DPV, and one timely and eficctive manner?
is currently being considered as a DPV, Iive of the nine tepresentatives had no comment Prior to the inteniews, the Panel unanimously agreed htcause they did not h ive first hand experience with that it was not in the Panel's charter to get involved with the procedures. The remaming four said that the the abstance of, nor intervene m,the processing of any of procedures allowed the issue to be handled in a the individual DPW c. DPOs discussed.
timely and effective manner. One representative further added that the new procedures were much
'Ihe questions asked during each inteniew were as fob better than the old. Nevertheless, one representa-tive commented that his organuation was unable to lows:
stay within 11 e prescribed time frames due to sched-1.
Have any DPVs been brought to your attention since uhng difficulties.
September 30,19ss? If so, how many?
5, What suggestions or comments do you have to make the DPV/DPO program more effectise or better 2.
How many, if any, were not resolved as DPVs and, pdenM therefore, were or are being processed as DPOs?
ibut c he representatises did not offer any sugges-3.
Ilow easy was the process to use?
tions or comments to make the DPV/DPO program more effective or better understood. Three 4.
Did the pnredures allow the iwuc to be handled in a representauves said that it was a good procew; two timely and effective manner?
specifically mentioned the informal pnwew as bemg
!!-l NI;RI O-1414
a good feature. One rm
..itive pointed out that And now, after going through it, bow would you the difference between a UPVand a DPO is unclear.
describe the otrani/ational chmate of the agrney?
6.
Is there anything che you would like to diseum with 6.
D.d the Office give any recognition to any indnidu.
the Panel?
als using the DPV/DPO process?
Summaty of Responses All nine representatives resp (mded that no special reco;,nidon was given to indhiduals using the DPV/
1.
How didyou first come to know of and lates become DPO process because either there ' vere no DPVs/
involved with the DPV/DPO process?
DPOs filed or because specific recognition was not ecmsidered appropriate in the cases in whkh they One interviewee stated that he was not initially pantapated.
M k DPV/DP() option. After attempts to rei.olve the issue with appropriate management, he wandvised to utdize the DPV/DPO option rather 13.
litterVicWS Willi IlldlVidtlals Wllo lhan to communicate direct y to the Cornmissioners.
Filed Dl'Vs Or Ol'Os
" " h ' " '""* * *"{* 8' * "" ""
mented that such an important option should be Purpose and Scope better publicised. Anothe. inter.iewee becan'a aware of the Open Door and Dil0 policyin the early To afaess the overall effectiveness of the DPV/DPO 1980s. He was working at a plant and aired some process, the Panel inteniewed submitters of Di,Vs/
concerns that were addressed through the DPO DPGsJlher e was one submittal that the Panel was unable process. He eventually provided testimony to to pursue because it was subrnitted anonymously. Add" Congress about the issue. He feels that use of the tionally, of the remaining submitters, one individual DPO option hurt his career and that others did not declined to be intemewed; two submittals mvolved the use the DPO policy because it would hurt their same individual; and, one submntal had not yet been careers. '!he third inteniewee did not respond to processed.1hus, a total of three indniduah were inter.
Ih", 9""SU""'
viewed.
2.
Did the procedures allow the issue to be hand!cd in a Prior to the intemews, once agam.the Panelagreed that it timely /effcetive manner?
was not in 1he Paners charter to get involved with the
- substane:of riorintervene in the processing of, any of the One inteniewee said the process was not carried out individual DPVs or DPGs discussed.
n a timely or elfeetive manner. This submitter also l
congnented that DPO procedut es w cre not followed
'1he questions asled durmg each inteniew were as fol-and the DPO Review Panel did not fully nddress the l
lows:
issues raised. Another stated that althcugh the paperwork may be considered accomplished in a 1.
How did you first come to know of and later become timely manner, the implementation of the action; l-Involved with the DPV/DPO process?
committed to in order to correct the conditions ex-pressed in the DPV have not been accomplished in a 2.
Did the proceduresallow the issue to be handled m a timely manner. The third inteniewee stated that the l
timely / effective manner?
DPY process cilecuvely addressed his concerns in a l
timely and effective marner.
I 3.
How easy / difficult was it to find this information?
3.
How easy /ddficult was it to find this information?
{
4.
Once you found it, how easy was the chapter to One mteniewee stated that guidance was readily understand?
available. Another stated that it was easy to find the 5.
Do you believe the informal DPV process has been Manual Chapter.'lhe third inteniewee did not an.
swer the question.
helpful in considering a differing opinion?
6.
What suggestions or cominents da you have to im-Once you found it, how easy was the chapter to 4.
j understand?
prove the DPV/DPO program?
j One interviewee stated that it was not all that easy to 7; Psior to participating in the procew what was your understand. Another stated that the guidance is casy view of the organizational climate for submitting a to understand, but was not sure that the requite-DPO?
rnents for the written DPV. statement were NURl!O-1414 lb2
~_
necesutryflhe third interviewee stated that he had a organizational chmate is such that fihng a DPV/
problem dtfferentiatingbetween a DPV and a DPO; DPO was a picat career risk. llowever, the inter-the test was easii) understood and apphed.
view ce stated that he does not behe ze this to be tr ue.
Do you believe the infor mal DPV pnwess has been helpful in considering a ddfering opinion?
%rs now, after going throt:gh it, how would you
< t scribe the organuatianal climate of the agenty?
One inteniew ee stated that the infortr.al DPV puo ess :s casies to use and more helpful; howevei. he One interview ec indicated he has suf fered as a result felt DPV/DPO submitters must still deal with the of a poor experience witn the D PO process w hich in-same people who made the original decisions with cluded an attempt to r? move him from his position.
which the DPV takes issue, particularly in the lle-With regard to a mete recent submittal, the inter-gions.*lhe other two stated that the informal DPk viewee behevc s the organization and elimate bas im-process is somewhat helpful, but the difference proved but believes that his prospects within the bctween a DPV and a DPO is stdl nncicat.
Apency ere now vety brnited due to the first subnut-tal. The other two mterviewces ma!c no additional 6.
What suitge'.tions or comments do you have to im-comment with rcrard to this part of this question.
prose the DPV/DPO profram?
X.
Is there anything else you would hke to discuss with One inteniewee stated that the DPV/DPO process the Panel?
t hould be a very '.ow key process. Ile felt that the re-view process thould be kept out of the llegions if One intemewee stated that the agency should take posuble because in the llegions the peopic invoh ed steps to chminate the stigma which results from fil-w1th the original agency decisions ar e the same peo.
ing a DPV/DPO. De stated that even the word ple who will review and contribate to the deciMon on "DPO" has a had connotation. 'the interviewer inds-the DPV 'lhis interviewee also stated that rna'uge.
cated that he is not sure how toimprove the situation ment should not only process the DPV paperwork but surgested that it is probably *h aman nature" for but take timely acticn to implement the actions re-managers not to want DPVs/DPOs hied within their or ini/ations.
sutting from the DPV. Another interviewee stated that the agency's organi/ational culture makes man-apers rductant to recognvc or admit mistakes and Another mieniewee was unc' car about the various thus, there is a predisposition on the part of the alte: natives, lie believed that there is a b;oad per-agency to find in favor of the established agency ception in NitC that fding a DPO is a last resort and position. Ile felt that r,uch an orgam/ational culture that the ranpc ef optionsbetween normal employec/
puts the careers of DPV/DPO submitters at seat management communications and the DPV/DPO risk and that in order for the DPO pmcess to work, pr ocess had not been clearly cornmunicated. 'lhe in, this must ehange.'lhc tturdinteniewec had nocom-tervWwee beheved it is important that each em-ment, or suggestions.
ployee understand all avadable means for wmmunicatmg a dif fering siewpoint.
7.
Prior to participating in the process, what was your
'the third inteiviewee stated that he was never in.
view e the organizational chmale for submitting a r
formed of the right of a DPV/DPO submitter to DPO?
recommend a member to sit on '.he DPV lieview One inteniewee wited that fding a DPV/DPO is Panch in addition, in this case the DPV lleview very detrimental to one's career. It :3 like "cuttmg I anel relied heavdy on input f rom mdividuals who your own thntat." The younger employees and the were invoh ed in deseloping the NitC pohcies which employees who ty;lieve that they may hae a bright the DPV called into question. Thur, the t esicw proe-futute in the agency see the consequences of fihng a ess was not considered independent from the origi-DPV/DPO and wdi not filc one. Another stated that nal decision. And fmally, the submitter fell that a fding a DPViDPO is not in an employce's best inter-very important and substantive part of this DPV was est, and that SES bonuses a:e gearcd to reward ignored. This DPVIDPO continue. under review
- good troops" not " boat rockers." 'lhe thud inter-and a fmal deciuon on its d:sposition has not >ct viewee stated that others advised him that the been made.
Ih3 NUltliO-1414
APPENDIX F Proposed Manual Chapter 4125 o
U.S. NUCLEAR RiGULA10RY COMMISSION NRC MANUAL Volume:
4000 Personnel OP Pstt
- 4:00 federal TRAPTEr4TH 01TTERINDRDFBITDMArymTr0R WIE10HS 4125-01 COVERAGE This chapter and its appendix cover NRC policy, objectives, procedures, respon-sibilities, and other basic requirements and definitions established to provide for the expression and resolution of dif fering professional views or opinions concerning matters related to the agency's mission.
Issues that do not qualify as differing professional views or opinions include issues that are or could have been appropriately addressed under grievance pro-cedures, personnel appeal procedures, or governed by law or government-wide regulation; issues that are subject to collective bargaining; issues involving allegations of wrongdoing that are appropriately addressed by the Office of the Inspector General; issues submitted anonymously which, if safety signifWnt, are appropriately addressed under NRC's Allegation Program; issues that ve 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 significant new information.
(SECTION G GF THE APPENDIX PROVIDES A QUICX-REFERENCE GUIDE FOR PROCES$1NG L'affERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS AND OPINIONS.)
4125-02 POLICY AND LBJECTIVES An informal as well as a formal process for considering the differing pro-fissional viewpoints of employees is established for issues airectly related to the mission of the NRC.
Issues raised through the informal process are called Differing Professional Views (DPys). Responsibility for ensuring review of the OPV and making und communicating a decision on the issue rests within the Office or Region of the submitter. As necessary, this Office or Region utilites 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, if the employee is not satisfied with the disposition of the issue through the informal process, the employee may file a Differing Professional Opinion (OPO) with tiv E00 if working in a Region or an Office reporting to the EDO, or with the Comission if working in an Office reporting to the Comission, if an issue is submitted directly to the EDO or Commis ion prior to consideration as a DPV, it is imediately forwarded to the submitter's Office or Region for review as a DPV through the informal process before action is considered through the formal DP0 process.
N NUld E 104
The objective of this policy is to assure the full consideration and prompt disposition of OPVs/0Pos.
Thus, the focus is an independent, impartial review by qualified personnel.
This policy can offer confidentiality, but not anonymity.
02)
- Policy, it is the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission 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/0PO 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 missinn of the agency. Moreover, both the general public and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission benefit when the agency seriously considers DPVs/0P0s.
This policy is intended to assure that all employees have the opportunity to express OPVs/0P0s 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 (OPVs) and a formal process for expressing Differing Professional Opinions (DP0s),
b.
To recognize submitters of OPVs/0P0s when they ha' contributed significantly to the mission of the agency.
c.
To provide for periodic assessment, as necessary, to ensure that implementation of these procedures accompiishes the stated objectives and to recommend appropriate changes.
4125-03 RESPONSIBillTIES AND AUTHORITIES 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 reporting directly to the Comission and informs the OP0 submitter of _
the final disposition and rationale, Forwards to the E00 DP0 submittals from Offices reporting directly to c.
the E00.
d.
Forwards submittals that have not gone through the DPV process to the submitter's Office Director for processing as a DPV.
NUIEG-1414 g
forwards anonymous submittals to the Office of Investigations, Office e.
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.
Utilizes appropriate and qualified sources inside and outside the NRC g.
to assist in reviewing a DPO.
Provides a sumary of the issue and its disposition in the Weekly h.
Information Report.
i, Maintains the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record of the formal proceedings.
Sends all completed DP0 case files to the Office of Personnel, Periodically reviews and modifies the OPV/0PO process based on j.
recommendations from the E00 and the Special Review Panel on Dif fering Professional Views or Opiniuns.
032 The Eqqjillyf._ Director for Operation _s (ED01:
Notifies the Director, Offica of Personnel, that a OP0 has been a.
received.
b.
Determines the disposition of OP0s submitted by employees in Offices reporting directly to the EDO and informs the DP0 submitter of the final disposition and rationale, Forwards to the Commission OP0 submittals from Offices reporting c.
directly to the Commission, d.
Fomards submittals thtt have not gene through the OPV process to the submitter's Office Director or Regional Administratnr to be processed as e 00V.
Forwards anonymous submittals to the Office of Invertigations, Office a.
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.
Utilizes appropriate and qualified sources inside and outside the NRC g.
to assist in reviewing a DPO.
h.
Provides a sumary of the issue and its disposition in the Weekly Information Report.
113 NUgr.o_1414
i.
Maintains the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate recond of the formal proceedings.
Sends all completed DP0 case files to the Office of Personnel.
j.
Periodically appoint 5 memb;.rc to a 3pecial Review Panel to review the 4
effectiveness of the DPV/DP0 process, k.
Reviews the Special Review Panel's report and makes rectmendations to the Comission, as necessary.
033 Office Directors and Recional AdministratorJ:
Determine the disposition of OPVs submitted from employees within a.
their Office or Region and inform the OPV submitter of tne decision and its rationale, b.
Forward anonymous submittals to the Office of Investigations Office of the Inspector General, or appropriate Allegation Program Manager.
}
.c.
Regional Administrators and Office Directors in AEOD, NMSS NRR, and F
RES appoint and maintain a Standing DPV P.eview Panel. All other Office Directors appoint DPV Review Panels when a OPV is submitted by an employee assigned to their Office, d.
Refer all DPVs to the appointed DoV Review Panel for detailed review, except for matters that appear to be of imediate health or safety significance.
Take action on and advise the 600 or Commirston of submittals that e.
appear to be of imediate health or safety signifi:ance.
f.
Utilize technical assistance from other NRC Affices/ Regions or from outside the agenc.v. as necessary, to address a highly speciali1ed
- issue, if assistance from outside the agency is required, Federal Advisory Comittee Act (FACA) requirements must be considered.
g.
Provide a sumary of the issue and it.t disposition in the Weekly Information Report, h.
Maintain the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record of the SPV proceedings.
i.
When an employee chooses to continue the issue through the formal DP0 process, a copy of the DPV records should be provided ta' the EDO or Comission, as appropriate.
NURnO-1414 gy
034 EQJ.tg or Reaton Review P rigl:
t Reviews OPVs and makes recomendations to the Office Director or a.
Regional Adn.inistrator.
Octermines whether sufficient documentation was provided by the OPV v.
subraitter for the Panel to undertake a detailed review.
Requests technical assistance through the submitter's Office Director c.
or Regional Administrator, if necessary.
035 lhLDirector. 07fice of Personnel:
Monitors the number of OP0 submittals being processed in the agency.
a.
b.
Retains all completed OP0 case files of f ormal proceedings until such time as an assessment is completed by a Special Review Panel, Ensures that appropriate parts of OP0s and their dispositions are c.
disseminated and/or made available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, d.
Provides administrative support to the Comission, E00. Office Directors, Regional Administrators, and the Special Review Panel in carry ng out their responsibilities for DPV/0P0 processing.
036 Manaueri Ad Suuervisors:
Upon raceipt of a DPV/0F0, submit the incoming correspondence to a.
the Office Director or Regional Adxinistrator for further processing, b.
Advise and assist employees in administratively preparing DoVs/Oros.
Determine the amount of work time and administrative support to be c.
provided in response to a OPV/0PO submitter's request for assistance.
d.
When mutually agreeable, maintain the confidentiality of the DPV/0P0 submittar by filing and discussing the OPV/0P0 on behalf of the
- employee, s
037 All Emoloyees make known their best professional judgments on any matter relatir39 to the mission of the agency by submitting a DPV/0P0 when apprcp. iate.
I F-s suiun-uu l
i 038 Soecial Review P nel:
3 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 assessment, prepares a report to the EDO that recommends appropriate actions to assure the proper functioning of the DPV/DP0 process, c.
Identifies and recognizes employees and managers who have made significant contributions to the agency or to public health and safety but were not adequately recognized for their contributions.
4125-04 DEFINITIDNS 041 Difhrino professional V.jn. A conscientious expression of a pro-fessional judgment that differs from the prevailing staff view, disagrees with a management decision or policy position, or takes issue with a proposed or an established agency practice involving technical, legal, or policy issues. A Differing Frofessional View (DPV)-is to be submitted in writing to the employee's supervisor, line management official, Office Director nr Regional Administrator.
042 Differino Professional Opinion.
A DPV becomes a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) after it has been processed and decided and the submitter requests that the matter be considered further by the EDO or Commission.
043 Confidential Subtaittal. A DPV/DP0 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.
Retallation consists of injurious actions taken against an employee because of the expression or support of a DPV/DPO.
4125-05 BASIC REQUIREMENTS 051 epolicability.
Proceduras for the expression and resolution of DPVs/DP0s apply to all NRC emplo>ees 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:
a.
the independent right of free speech provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
_ NURiiG-1414 F-6
b.
the right of government employees to petition the Congress (5 USC 7102).
the rights of employees to comunicate directly with the Congress as c.
outlined in the Code of Ethics for Government Service (10 CFR 0.735 -
Annex A),
d.
provisions of the 1978 Civil Service Refortr. Act dealing with pro-hibited personnel practices and the regulations of the Merit System Protection Board.
052 Accendix 4111 This appendix provides procedures for the expression and disposition of OPVs/DP0s.
i F-7 NURiiG-1414
1 CONTENTS EAR A.
Introduction.....................................................
1
-B.
Informal orocess for Expressing Diff ert:ig Professional Views.....
1 C.
Formal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Opinions....
3 0.
Resources to Assist Originators of Differing Professional V i ew s o r 0p i n i on s................................................
5 E.
Special Review Pane 1......................
5 F.
Prevention of Retaliation Against Individuals Who Express or Support Differing Professional Views or Opinions.................
6 G.
OPV/DP0 Proce s sing Flow Chart...................................
7 P
_a I
s
. NURl!G-1414 3:_g
_m
PROCEDURES FOR 1HE EXPRESSION AND OlSPOSITION Of OlFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS AND OPINIONS h.
h$niqrMg3 in the free and open discussion of agency issues, professional differences of opinion are comon.
Employees normally try, and are encouraged, to re',oive their concerns through discussions with their co-workerc and immediste supervisor, indtvidual 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 chain. Individur.1 employees are strongly encouraged to discuss their diff ering professional viewpoints within the chain of comand, 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 Differ- ' Professional View (DPV) or a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) only when we employee brings them to management's attention in accordance with these procedures, in these cases, informal discussions may not resolve the riatter and an emplope may be convinced that the agency and the public would be better served if another opinion prevailcd.
10 furthcr pursue such matters using these procedures, Tn employee must submit a written statement in accordance with this Manual Chapter.
An employee may not use these procedures without submitting a written statement.
B.
h{ormalProcess for Eporessjno Differino Professiqqal Views 1
The DPV process it initiated by 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 five calendar days.
Individuals who are contemplating the submittal of a OPV and officials who receive a DPV arc encouraged to contact the Director, Office of Personnel, for guidance on the prntess.
2.
The written statement, while being t,rief, shall in all cases include the following:
a summary of the prevailing staf f view, existing management decision a.
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.
'9 NURiiG-1414
c.
an assessment of the consequences should the submitter's position not be adopted by the agency.
3.
If an employee wishes to nave a differing view considered as a OPV but desires confidentiality, the employee may submit an unsigned OPV to an NRC manager who agrees to forward it to the appropriate official.
Disposition of the OPV 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 acknowledgment of receipt of the statement or disposition directly to the submitter.
In such cases, the manager who forwarded the DPV shall relay to the originator both the acknowledgment of receipt and all reports received by that manager concerning its disposition or resolution.
4.
Anonymously submitted DPVs are not covered by the provisions of this Chapter.
Anonymous submissions will be referred to the Office of Investigations, the Office nf the Inspector General, or the appropriate Allegation Program Manager.
5.
A Standing Review Panel (panel) is to be astablished and maintained in each - Region, AE00, HMSS, - NRR, and h S to review OPVs.
Directors of Offices other than those listed above should appoint OPV Review Panels only when a DPV has been submitted from their Office.
The panels are appointed in writing by the Regional Administrator or Office Director, and should be chaired by the Deputy Regional Administrator, Deputy Office Director, or equivalent official.
Each panel will include a Chairperson and one other member appointed by management.
The submitter may consult with the-exclusive bargaining unit representative to nominate qualified individuals who would be willing to serve as the third panel member. A third panel member will be chosen by the Chairperson from a list proposed by the employee submitting the OPV.
6.
The panel sNuld_ normally review the DPV within seven calendar days of receipt to determine if enough information has been suppiled to undertake a detailed review of tiie issue. The panel should infornially contact the employee or the manager who forwarded the OPV if additional information is needed.
7.
Those involved in the informal review process shall give prinrity handling to issues involving potential immediate or significant Salth and safety concerns.
This includes calling such issues to the immediate attention of_ higher management.
8.
Once the panel has received the necessary information to begin a review, the panel should normally take no more than 30 calendar days to make a recommendation to the Regional Administrator or Office Director.
NURiiG-1414 ltig i
The Regional Administrator or Office Director shnuld review the panel's 9.
recomendations and provide the employee (or manager) who submitted the rationale for that decision.
Nomally, this DPV with a decision andseven calendar days af ter receipt of the panel's should occur withinA sumary of the issue and its disposition should be recomendations.
included in the Weekly Information Report to advise interested employees of the outcome.
- 10. Extenuating circumstances may cause delays in concluding the OPY process.
Notice of delays should be comunicated to the submitter, or in the event of a confidential statement, comunicated to the manager who forwarded If the review and disposition of the OPV does not occur within the DPV.
60 calendar days from the date of receipt by the Office Director or Regional Administrator, the reason for delay should be reported to the EDO or Comission, as appropriate,
- 11. To reduce the admiriistrative burden and resource expenditures, only the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record of the These records should be proceedings should be developed and maintained.
maintained and available only within the Region or Of fice, if the matter is not settled to the satisfaction of the submitter and the submitter requests in writing that the issue be further revtewed under formal DP0 procedures, the Of fice 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 OPO.
t;* pes of issues are excluded from this process and may be
- 12. Certain These include rejected by the Office Director or Regional Administrator.
those issues thst do not qualify as a OPV as stated in 4125-01.
[ormal Process frr Excres.sino fifferina Professional Ooinions C.
The formal DP0 review process may be initiated by an employee, af ter the 1.
OFV process has been completed, by submitting a written statement to the EDO cr Comission, as appropriate.
Employees in Offices reporting to the E00 shall submit their DP0 to the EDO.
Employees in Offices reperting to the Chainnan or Comission shall submit their 0P0 to the Comission.
Written DP0 submissions shall meet the same criteria established for the 2.
submission of a DPV.
If the EDO or Comission receives a DP') that has not been considered 3.
through the DPV process, the EDO or Comission 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 operate under the provisions of Section B of this Appendix.
1 -11 N UlWW 1414
\\
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.
S.
The E00 or Comission may utilize qualified sources inside and outside the NRC to assist in reviewing the OPO.
The EDO or Comission (as appropriate) will provide the submitter with a v.
decision and rationale for that decision.
Normally, this should occur within 30 calendar day 4f ter receipt of all solicited views requested by the EDO or Commission.
Extenuating circumstances may cause the EDO or Comission to delay in making a final decision.
in such cases, the submitter should be advised of the time frame for considering the issue.
7.
To reduce the administrative burden and resource expenditures, only the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record of the proceedings shnuld be developed and maintained.
All completed DP0 case files will be sent by the EDO 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 OP0 process shall give imediate priority attention to issues involving significant heelth and safety concerns.
This includes.dvising the Office Director, Regional Administrator, or as appropriate the EDO or Comission, of any imediate safety concerns.
9.
Certain types of issues are excluded from this process and may be rejected by the EDO-or Comission.
Issues that do not qualify as a DP0 are stated in 4125 01.
- 10. After a decision on a OP0 is made by the EDO or-Commission and comunicited to the submitter (or to the manager who forwarded the DPO),
the matter is considered closed and will Iot be considered further absent significant new information.
D.
Resources to Assist Orioinators of Differino Professional Views or Ooinions To assist submitters in preparing adequate written DPVs/DP0s statements, the suomitter's irrnediate supervisor, in conruitation with their manager, will determine the amount of the employee's worn 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 ar. 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.
NURiiG-NH r_ g
E.
Special 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-Members of zational climate for hrdnq such views aired and properly decided.
the Special Review Panel vill be appointed by the EDO af ter consultation with the Chairman.
The Special Review Panel will prepare a report based on this assessment that will be submitted to the EDO for consideration.
The report or its Executive The CD0 will forvaro the Sumary will also be distributed to all employees.
report with any coments or recommended Manual Chapter changes to the Comission for approval.
In addition, the Special Review Panel will review DPVs/DP0s completed since the last review to identify employees who have made significant contributions to the agency or to public health and safety but have not been :dequately recog-When award recommendations have not been made, nized for this contribution.
they may be made by the Special Review Panel in accordance with provisions of HRC's incentive Awards Program (Chapter NRC-4154).
Recomendations for awards will be included in the Special Review Panel's report.
Erevention of Retaliattpn Acainst Individuali_W,ho Express or Suonort F.
Differino Professional Views or Ooinions Any NRC employee who retaliates against another employee for submitting or supporting a DPV!DP0 is subject to disciplinary action la accordance with
" Discipline, Adverse Actions and Separations.' This applies Chapter NRC-4171, to, retaliatory 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.
Employees who allege that retaliatory actions have been taken because of their submittal or support of a ODV/DP0 may seek redress through the negotisted grievance procedure or through the grievance procedure described in Chapter NRC-4157, " Employee Grievances."
B N Ul(1 ( 6 - 1414 ltl3
G.
OPV/O n Processino Flow Chart Steps in processing a DPV/0PO.
1.
Employee writes a Olffering Professional View (DPV).
2.
The OPV should be submitted directly or through line management, to the employee's Office Director / Regional Administrator.
If submitted to another NRC organization it is forwarded to the employee's Office Director / Regional Administrator for processing through the informal DPV process.
The employee's Office Director / Regional Administrator acknowledges receipt and forwards the submittal to the OPV Review 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 panel ) chairperson and another panel member.The Office Director or Region The submitter may provide a list of qualified individuals to the panel chairperson who selects one of them to serve as the third member of the DPV Review Panel.
3.
The DPY Review Pinel considers the OPV and provides the submitter's Office Director / Regional Administrator a report of findings and a recomended course of action.
4.
The Office Director / Regional Administrator considers the DPV Review Panel's report, makes a decision on the OPV; provides a written decision to the submitter; and, includes a sumary of the issue and 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.
6.
If the submitter does not consider the matter closed, a written DP0 statement expressing continuing concerns may be submitted to the Comission or EDO, as appropriate.
7.
Upon receipt of a formal DPO, the Comission/EDO contacts the submitter's Office Director / Regional Administrator to obtain all records that may aid in the formal DP0 review process.
When the Comission/EDO 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 frem the E00 or Comission, the DP0 process is concluded.
NUREG-1414 l' 14
___________________L
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS G.
INFORMAL (DPV) PROCESS OPV SUBMITTER 1r OFFICE / REGIONAL MANAGEMENT m
if OFFICE / REGION REVIEW PANEL
%./ quemusumuseum i t OFFICE DIRECTOR OR REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR U
DPV SUBMITTER FORMAL (DPO) PROCESS i f OPO SUBMITTER "ECm CTOR OR COMMtSSION po9 p l
OPO SUBMITTER 1-15 NURl!O-1414
I ENDIX G Proposed Manual Chapter 4126
,w
U.S. NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION NRC MANUAL Volume:
4000 Personnel OP Part :
4100 Feder '
CHAPTER 4126 OPEN DOOR POLICY 4126 01 COVERAGE This chapter and its appendix cover NRC policy, objectives, procedures, and responsibilities related to the expression of views directly to agency man-at all levels through the Open Door policy. It applies to all agency agers employees, including agency managers and supervisors.
4126-02 POLICY AND OBJECTIVES 021 P_olic y.
The NRC strongly encourages all of its employees to foster an atmosphere in the agency in which they may openly and freely communicate on critical issues, particularly those related to public health their views in a and.lafety. The free and open exchange of views or ideas conducted non-threatening environment provides the ideal forum in which concerns and alternative views can be 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-cerns with their immediate supervisors on a regular, ongoing basis. On employees may wish to initiate communications with other occasion, howeve',
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.
022 Objectives.
a.
To provide NRC employees with a channel for communicating concerns or issues directly to all levels of respcnsible agency officials.
b.
Te protect employees who use the Open Door policy from retaliation in any form because of their proper use of this colicy.
4126-03 RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES 031 The Director. Of fice of Personnel (OP),
requires all of the Headquarters ana Regional personnel offices to include an overview of the Open Door policy in the orientation for new employees.
NURiiG-1414 G-1
NRC 4126 032 OP E N DOO_R PO L I C 'r 032 Managers and supervist'rs:
a.
Should, to the extent practicable, consider and address 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 retaliatory action against any emDioyee soleiv because that employee utilizea or supported another employ ee who utilized the Open Door policy.
- However, this does not preclude supervisors from initiating,
- pursuing, or continuing to pursue unrelated personnel actions affecting employees who have used the Omn Door policy.
033 All employees; a.
Are expected to communicate their views and concerns to their immediate 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 tc resolve any issue or Conce"n.
4126 04 DEFINITIONS 041 Manager / supervisor.
An employee who directs the work of an organization, is held accountable for specific line or staff programs or 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 discuss and attempt to resolve issues and concerns.
043 Retaliation.
Retaliation consists of any injurious actions taken against the employee becaute of the employee's expression or support of a
- Concern, 4126-05 BASIC REQUIREMENTS 051 Applicability. These procedures for the expression and resolution of empMyee concerns are for the use of all NRC employees including managers and supervisors.
052 Appenalx 4126, This appendix provides guidance for the expression of concerns unoer the Open Door policy, NURIE1414 na
OPEN DOOR Poll _CL NRC Appendix 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, to discuss any matter of concern to the employ ee.
An employee may request an Open Door meeting directly with the selected manager or supervisor without the approval of intermeciate management.
An employee's request for confidentiality will normally be honored by the manager or supervisor contacted under the Open Door policy except when the manager contacted is an NRC Commissioner.
Each Commissioner is legally required to inform all other Commissioners of any informa-tion believed to be related to the responsibility or the function of the Commission.
(T his requirement for mandatory information sharing applies only to the Commissioners and does not extend to others within NRC.) Subject to this constraint, an employee's request for confiden-tiality made in connection with communications under the Open Door policy will normally be honored by the NRC manager unless (1) as a practical matter it is impossible to convey the tubstance of the in-
'ormation without making known the identity of the employee, (2) dis-closure of the employee's identity is essential for determination of the accuracy and reliability of the information, or (3) the employee's identity is rt>1uired 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.
Honoring a request for confidentiality may, however, limit a
manager's or supervisor's ability to provide assistance or advice and counsel on 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 Nianua! Chapters 4125 (Differing Professional Views or opinions),
4155 ( Appeals from Adverse Actions), and 4157 ( Employee Grievances). If the contacted supervisor believes that others should be notified of issues manager or raised in these Open Ocor discussions, he/she should notify the responsible offices (e.g., the Office of the Inspector General),
B.
Advisory Committees if the issue raised 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, i
l G-3 NURl!G-1414
NRC Appendix 4126 OPEN DOOR PCLICY An NRC employee may also appear before the ACRS or ACNW or a subcommittee as deemed appropriate by the committee.
The ACRS or ACNW will assure that issues raised under the Open Door policy are forwarded to the responsible NRC office director for information and/or action, as appropriate.
C.
Use of the Open Door Policy The Open Door policy was adopted to foster an atmosphere of open and free communication within the agency and underscore management's intention to consider and address those issues and concerns brought to them.
The Open Door policy should be used by all NRC employees with integrity and for the stated purposes.
D.
Prevention of Retaliation Against Any Employee for Expressing or Supporting Those Who Express Concerns Under the Open Door Policy Any NRC employee who retaliates against another employee for expressing or supporting those expressing concerns under Open Door policy is subject to disciplinary action in accordance with NRC Manual Chapter 4171 (Discipline, Adverse Actions and Separations ).
This applies to retallatory actions and to all prohibited personne: practices specified in Section 2302, Title 5, U.S. Code.
Employees who allege that retaliatory actions have been taken because of their expression or support of a concern under the Open Door policy may seek redress through other channels, such as the negotiated grievance procedure or through the formal grievance procedure described in NRC Manual Chapter 4157 (Employee Grievances).
N URl!G-1414 0 -4
De C F O M 336 U.S. #Gmt.g.,R RimAAtcy cous,066NDd
- 1. at PoHf FAMt,4 R l
(F-881 kassignwl by f.no AACw.Vol.,
40.
8 w. n....
un u.
tecv 102.
- ' ' " a'r 1 W. N BIBLIOGRAPHlO DATA SHEET ts m tnetion. an in. re.
i NURPG-1414
- 3. Taf tt APO Buttfitit
& DAIt Hi PpH1 Putsi6*n O Dtifering Professional Views or Opinions uo,o,i j
vrAn April 1992 1990 Special Review Panel 4 FN oR GRANT PAMotR
- 6. AVIreOR 5) 4 tvit utHtPvHI t
Special Review Panet Report Special Review Panel F. M RIGO COVERT o (Friusive Det.e) 10/1/88 - 5/1/90 u
u Avont ss e ecc..
- u. o,,...an ce. c.. n
.an. u a eu., n.g#.i, umn....an..no
- e. eswonwm.es,nawz.atioN - naut.m. oms rnalhng omr.ss-)
tromng an if contr cta, prcne. n U.S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Cornmission Wohington, DC 20555
- e. seossone,o oe4artaz A viou. e.Aui Are Aoont se i.r, rec i,s.
- s.....t,rn i is cm,r.ctor, oro.u. esic oivi. ion. o.ew4, ei. van, u s. Nuci.., n.ouiatory cernoon.
,o mening. air..
i Same as 8. above.
10 buf%iMLNT ARY NOf t 8
- 11. ABBIRACT IM) myos a toes)
In December 1989, ;,: Executive Director Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appointed a Special Review Panel to evaluate the effectiveness of NRC Manual Chapter 4125, Differing Profes-sional Views or Opinions, and NRC Manual Chapter 4126, Open Door Policy. In accordarice with Section I! of NRC Poendix 4125, the Panel was responsible for assessing "... the informal and formai proecsses for dealing eith diti; ring 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 and opinions alred and properly decided." This report presents the Special Review Panel's evaluation of the NRC's current process for dealing with Dtifering Professional Views or Opinions. Provided in this report are the results of an employee opinion survey on the process; highlights and suggestions from interviews with individuals who had submitted a Diffeting Frofessional 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.
13 AVAILAD3UTYBIATEMENI
- 12. KEY WOROS CE &cRPTORS (tJat wcade or pewas.s that will.esist r.a rch.re in loostmg the r.pcrt.)
Unlimited
- 14. SECUR!TY CLASSihCATK)N differing professional opinions o ai. r.si>
differing professional views Unclassified reVICw panel g g,,, g,9 Unclassified is.,#;uats oe eaats i6 PHICE NRC FORM 335 (2-49j
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRINTED USING RECYCLED PAPER 4
UNITED STATES spra,tgo
. g 33 m NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION resTAct oc vctspire WASHINGTON, D.C 205E5 OsNRC MAM:T 140. G e7 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRlVATE USE, $300 12055513o531 1 ISN US NoC-0ADM nIV FCIA E PUBLICATIONS SVCS T PS-PD P -T)UR E G l
c o,,if1G*nN WA5$
?r W l
1 l
l'IFl"DTd3M
,