ML20135B027

Differing Professional Views or OPINIONS.1994 Special Review Panel

ML20135B027
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/30/1996
From:	NRC OFFICE OF PERSONNEL (OP)
To:
References
NUREG-1518, NUDOCS 9612040132
Download: ML20135B027 (79)

Text

/

NUREG-1518 Differing Professional Views or Opinions 1994 Special Review Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Review Panel o

y

/,tontc \

e

\...../ 4*)1 0

96 2O g 2 960930 l 1518 R. PDR i .

NUREG-1518 Differing Professional Views or Opinions 1994 Special Review Panel ,

i Manuscript Completed: September 1996 Date Published: September 1996 1

Special Review Panel j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, DC 20555-0001 j

,/ "%,,,  ;

I r l

t l  !

ABSTRACT In July 1994, the Executive Director for public health and safety but had not been Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory adequately recognized for this contribution.  :

Commission (NRC) appointed a Special Review l L Panel to assess the Differing Professional View or The report presents the Special Review Panel's l Opinion (DPV/DPO) process, including "...its evaluation of the NRC's current process for i effectiveness, how well it is understood by dealing with Differing Professional Views or ,

employees, and the organizational climate for Opinions. Provided in this report are the results i having such views aired and properly decided." of an employee opinion survey on the process;  ;

An additional area within this review was to highlights and suggestions from interviews with l L address ". the effectiveness of the DPO individuals who had submitted a Differing  !

l _ procedures as they pertain to public access and Professional View or Opinion, as well as with  !

confidentiality." Further, the Panel was charged agency managers directly involved with the ,

with the review of the submittals completed since Differing Professional Views or Opinions process; i the last review to identify employees who made and the Special Review Panel's recommendations i significant contributions to the agency or to the for improving the DPV/DPO process.

i r

i e

i l

l l

I i

i I

i i

f iii NUREG-1518 >

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

- A free and open discussion of differing previous review have had positive effects on the professional views is essential to the development process; however, most employees still believe that of sound regulatory policy and decisions. In DPV/DPO filers are perceived by management as recognition of that fact, since 1976 the U.S.

not being team players, and there is an employee-Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has perception of retribution, particularly in the form provided ways for employees to bring their of career advancement limitations. An associated differing professional views to the attention of the issue is that of a feeling of skepticism about highest levels of management. In 1980, NRC. whether or not a DPV or DPO will be judged Manual Chapter 4125 was published, outlining fairly by the Agency.

and describing the NRC's Differing Professional Opinion policy. In mid-1987, a Special Review De Panel's key recommendations follow:

Panel examined this policy. As a result of that Panel's findings and recommendations, published . 1. De Chairman, Commission, and EDO

- in NUREG-1290, modifications were made and should make public announcements declaring Manual Chapter 4125, Differing Professional that diversity of viewpoints is a strength and Views or Opinions (DPVs/DPOs), and Manual a potential source of valuable ideas, thus Chapter 4126, Open Door Policy, were approved making it clear that they believe that September 30,1988. In December 1989, a Special employees filing DPVs and DPOs should be Review Panel convened to assess the informal and fully supported and encouraged to air their formal process. As a result of that Panel's findings views without fear of reprisal.

and the conversion of policy into directives, Management Directive 10.159, Differing 2. Dere must be encouragement for full Professional Views or Opinions, and Management Participation by the filer from the beginning Directive 10.160, Open Door Policy, were issued to the end of the process.

3. Filers of DPVs should be asked whether they In accordance with Section 038 of Management want their DPV file to be placed in the Directive 10.159, a Special Review Panel is to Public Document Room (PDR) and whether periodically assess the effectiveness of the revised .

they want their names to be withheld from or procedures. De Executive Director for included in the file

• Operations appointed this Special Panel in July 4. Standing DPV panels should be eliminated 1994 to examme the current DPV/DPO policies and procedures. De Special Review Panel and, instead, panels should be constructed on conducted an employee opimon survey, held an ad hoc basis depending on the technical Interviews, and reviewed the processing of actual issue that must be addressed.

Differing Professional Views and Differing 5.

Professional Opinions in accordance with the The DPO process should be changed to require the establishment of Ad Hoc Review directions provided in Appendix A.

Panels similar to those recommended for the DPV process, including input from the filer, On the basis of its review, the Special Review that would result in recommendations to the Panel concluded that revisions resulting from the EDO.

v NUREG-1518 1

-i i

i-4 FOREWORD 4 In July 1994, the Executive Director of Operations Arlene A.Jorgensen-Hillestad, '

i of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel, i (NRC) appointed a Special Review Panel to Representative, National 'Ilreasury evaluate the effectiveness of the Differing Employees Union.

Professional Views or Opinions process. 'Ihe

, Panel members were:

Others who contributed extensively to this project Guy A. Arlotto, include:

Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Marthe E. Harwell who provided Appointed as Panel Chairperson. administrative support in the interview process and writing and editing support for James E McDermott, the Commission report and the resulting Deputy Director, NUREG document.

Office of Personnel.

~ John M. Montgomery, .

Deputy Regional Administrator, J. David Woodend who provided advice and guidance in the revisions of Management Re8'on IV' Directive 10.159.

Usa B. Clark, Office of the General Counsel, Representative, National 'Ilreasury Kathleen M. Adams who collated the results Employees Union, of the employee opinion survey.

i l

j i

vii NUREG-1518 l

CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT............................................................................. iii EXECUTIVE S UM MARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v FOREWORD............................................................................. vii SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Backgroun d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Key Overall Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organizational Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 How Well Un derstood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Report Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Employee Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Panel Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Background Documents and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 APPENDICES A Special Review Panel Charter B Confidentiality C Survey Questionnaire D Interview Questions and Results E Management Directive 10.159, Differing Professional Views or Opinions, as approved March 20,1991 F- Revised Management Directive 10.159, Differing Professional Views or Opinions ix NUREG-1518

4 i

SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL REPORT i

he United States Nuclear Regulatory In July 1994, the Executive Director for

! Commission (NRC)is regularly faced with making Operations appointed a Special Review Panel to i difficult decisions-decisions that can have assess the effectiveness of the DPV/DPO process

- profound impacts on public health and safety and (Appendix A). Specifically, this Panel was asked on our nation's nuclear energy program. As a to assess how well the process was understood by result, in making important safety decisions, the employees, the organizational climate for having Commission must have at its disposal the best views aired and properly decided, and the

information available, effectiveness of the DPO procedures as they

pertain to public access and confidentiality.

For the NRC to successfully meet its regulatory Further, this Panel was charged with the review of

responsibilities, the agency must ensure that the the submittals completed since the last review to

decision-making process includes and considers identify employees who made significant eli points of view in an organizational climate that contributions to the agency or to the public health t promotes open discussion. and safety but had not been adequately

! recogmzed for th,s i contribution.

I . Background Key Overall Findings and Recommendations 4

he NRC's commitment to a free and open j discussion of professional views is illustrated in It is clear that most employees who may consider i the NRC Open Door Policy (first communicated the filing of a DPV or DPO know about the to agency employees m 19,6) 7 and the NRC process. In addition, those who have actually filed j Differmg Professional Opimon Policy (formally DPVs or DPOs found information about the j established in 1980). Rese policies permit , process readily available and easy to use.

employees at all, levels to provide professional

, , However, the key issue the Agency must deal j viewpoints on virtually all matters pertaimng t with, whether real or perceived, is the fact that

the agency,s mission. most employees believe that DPV/DPO filers are

perceived by management as not being team i In 1987, a Commission appointed panel players, and there is an employee perception of

. conducted an extensive review of these policies. retribution, particularly in the form of career

! As a result of this Panel's findings and advancement limitations. An associated issue is j recommendations (published in NUREG-1290), that of a feeling of skepticism about whether or  !

! Manual Chapter 4125, Differing Professional not a DPV or DPO will be judged fairly by the j Views or Opinions, and Manual Chapter 4126, Agency.

Open Door Policy, were issued and approved 4 September 30,1988. The panel concluded that the above are the key issues that must be dealt with if the credibility of I In December 1989, the Executive Director for the DPV/DPO process is to be assured. Thus, all Operations appointed a Special Review Panel to recommendations focus on potential actions that assess the effectiveness of the revised procedures. should be taken to increase credibility.

As a result of this Panel's review, Management Directive 10.159, Differing Professional Views or 1. The Chairman, Commission, and EDO Opinions, was prepared to include editorial should make public announcements declaring changes to clarify the meaning. The findings of that diversity of viewpoints is a strength and this Panel's review were published in a potential source of valuable ideas. thus NUREG-1414. Guidance and a discussion of the making it clear that they believe that DPV/DPO process was incorporated as part of employees filing DPVs and DPOs should be the NRC Employee Orientation Program fully supported and encouraged to air their presented to new employees. views without fear of reprisal.

1 NUREG-1518

2. There must be encouragement for full either did not know whether, or disagreed that, participation by the filer from the beginning the policy provides~an effective means of to the end of the process. employee expression.

A Filers of DPVs should be asked whether they While 25% of those who responded to the survey want their DPV file to be placed in the believe the current climate is favorable for Public Document Room (PDR) and whether expressing a differing viewpoint, a substantial they want their names to be withheld from or number of respondents have no opinion (33%) or i included in the file. do not find it favorable (40%). This appears to be a failing in organizational climate. (The 1989

4. Standing Review Panels for DPVs should be survey indicated that approximately 36% of the eliminated and, instead, both DPV and DPO staff believed that filing a DPO could adversely panels should be constructed on an ad hoc affect their careers.)

basis, panel composition depending on the technical issue that must be addressed. Some staff members continue to fear reprisal (40%) and note that fear as the primary reason

5. The DPO process should be changed to for lack of policy effectiveness. They also believe require the establishment of Ad Hoc Review there is a culture within the NRC that does not Panels similar to those recommended for the want to expose any weakness or error in previous DPV process, including input from the filer, NRC decisions or positions. Employees that would result in recommendations to the responding to the survey aired beliefs that EDO. submitting a DPV or DPO was " suicidal to your career" and that a filer would be " considered as a De above key overall findings and troublemaker or non-team player." The second recommendations are discussed more fully in the most noted reason for lack of effectiveness is the following paragraphs under the various headings. perception that reviewers are predisposed to the outcome of a DPV/DPO (23%). j e ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE Also as a result of the interview process, the Panel Employee Arception f und cvidence of greater effectiveness in the handh,ng of DPVs m certam Regional Offices.

FINDINGt Employeeperception of the Strong support came from top management down organizational climate and resulting through all levels to the employee. Manage aent effectiveness of the DFV/DFO ptocess has expressed the belief that it was the duty of an generally not improved. At the same time, employee to bring safety concerns to the attention certain Regional Offices have had greater of management and that management should give success in setting a tone that lets employees its full i,upport to the eifective and fair review of ,

know that filing DPVs will not affect their all concerns. At times, it was felt by management i careers adversely. that an issue could be better dealt with when an i employee became the agent for the airing of a l The Panel learned from the survey results, written concern. As a result, an employee would volunteer l I

responses to questions, and especially from oral to be the agent for the airing of a technical remarks during interviews that the process is not concern and the DPV mechanism became frequently used, and thus the evidence suggests activated. The investigation of the problem was  ;

that it is not highly effective because of the greatly facilitated by interaction between the filer current organizational climate. As a result, there of the DPV and the Standing Review Panel. j has been essentially no positive effect on employee  !

perceptions of the DPV/DPO policy since the last The Panel became aware of more positive  :

review. Specifically, only 34% of those responding outlooks toward the DPV process from some to the survey indicated that the current policy is Regional employees who had actually filed DPVs.

effective. This compares to 39% who so These filers expressed in their oral remarks the responded in the 1989 employee survey. In belief that they had been encouraged to use the additian, the Panel would like to emphasize the process, took the Agency's word, and filed a DPV. I fact that almost 65% of the survey respondents ney expressed satisfaction with their hearing and i

NUREG-1518 2 l

no reluctance to file again if they believed strongly reached a point of diminishing returns in the in a position. effectiveness of the DPV/DPO program.

Another area of strength in the handling of DPVs RECOMMENDATION: Impart to alllevels of was the policy of actively involving the filer during NRC employees (both managers and employees) the review of a submitted DPV. 'Ihis was accepted through announcements, trammg, andpolicy policy for certain Regional Offices, and the filer changes the extreme importance of regular often felt that he/she had had a fair hearing of a communscatwn to address sssues openly andfrankly concern. Even if the employee's recommendation (1) before they become escalated to the status of was not implemented, the filer was given DPVs or DPOs and (2) m a fast, equitable manner management's full explanation of the reason for when the officialprocess is invoked.

l the decision, often providing broader information - Advise the Chairman, Commission, and than previously avadable to the employee.

EDO that they should make public  !

announcements declaring that diversity of l A third area of strength has been the routm.e

, viewpoints is a strength and a potential .

inclusion of discussion of the DPV/DPO process source of valuable ideas, thus making it clear during training sessions of regional personnel, that they believe that employees filing DPVs Regional Office Instructions melude specific and DPOs should be fully supported and sections deahng with DPVs/DPOs and the Open encouraged to air their views without fear of

• Door Policy. This has resulted m a better reprisal. i understanding of the process by both managers and employees. -

Reinforce the importance of the DPV/DPO  !

process during Senior Management Meetings  :

One Regional Office also has established a and all other staff meetings and during l separate mechanism to assist employees who have training sessions, emphasizing the safety >

a concern. An employee with a potential concern significance of DPVs/DPOs and their is referred to other employees who may have had contribution to the accomplishment of the experience filing a DPV or may be technical Agency's mission.  !

1 experts in the area of concern. This group serves as a facilitating body to answer questions and -

Periodically emphasize to managers and i help during the development process. supervisors that there should be no negative  !

connotation associated with one of their Overall, tliese processes have helped to improve employees submitting a DPV/DPO, that the channels of communication among managers reprisal is unacceptable, and that proper and and employees. These enhancements have also timely processmg of such views is important.

demonstrated a level of management sensitivity t -

Provide summaries of resolved DPVs in the equ,itable treatment of addition to DPOs in the Weekly Information viewpomts. Where filer ion opm, differing of the results of a professional Report-DPV was poor, evidence often showed that there had been little or no communication from the initial submittal of a concern to the time of the Reriew het Composition filer's receipt of an im xrsonal report from the FINDING: Filers of DPVs/DPos often Standing Review Pane' . In fact, some filers observed that the members of a Standing resorted to the DPV process only when concerns Review Panel did not include individuals who aired through the normal channels of were technically quahfied to review the ments commumcation were ignored by management. of differing view or else consisted ofindividuals who had been part of the original The Panel believes that, unless there is a decision makingprocess, which contributed to significant change in organizational climate the impression of a strong bias against a filer's throughout the Agency, consistent with the view, successful policies that have been adopted in the regions, there will be no constructive change in Filers of DPVs and DPOs expressed a serious perception and, as a result, the Agency will have concern with regard to the validity of the 3 NUREG-1518 1

. . _ . - - - _ _ . - - - _ _ _-__ __.I

l

\

composition of Standing Review Panels as related to its technical content, and create a similar mandated by the present policy. Some filers panelfor the handling of DPOs, making sure that indicated that people on a panel did not have the there is direct communication between the panel technical credentials necessary to evaluate and thefiler.

adequately the issue at hand. These filers believed that they could not get a fair hearing by a panel -

Create Ad Hoc Review Panels for DPVs  !

that could not understand the technicalintricacies consisting of members who are specialists m they proposed. The Panel heard suggestions from the specific technical area of concern both filers and some panel chairpersons that the (managers and/or staff) and a representative i panels reviewing DPVs should include members of the filer's choice. l who are technically qualified to review the  !

concern being aired, not just the present -

Create Ad Hoc Review Panels for the review composition of two managers and one filer of DPOs consisting of members similar to the I representative. Some filers also questioned the panel for the review of DPVs.

objectivity of a Standing Review Panel that included member (s) who had perhaps been -

Retain a management representative for each involved in the original decision-makmg process Office and Region to act as a facilitator in i related to the filers' concerns. The filers also the selection and monitoring of Ad Hoc i suggested that the Standing Review Panels in Review Panels. l program offices and Regional Offices be '

abolished and replaced with Ad Hoc Review I Emphasize to Office Directors, Regional Panels that would be created on a case-by-case Administrators, and Ad Hoc Review Panels bas,s, i dependmg on the techmcal area of concern.

that they have specific authority to request technical assistance from another Another area of concern dealt with involvement of the filer in the DPV or DPO process. Some filers Office / Region or from outside the, agency to address a highly specialized techmcal issue.

expressed disappointment in not having had any communication with the Standing Review Panel during the review process. Others felt that not all Emphasize to all supervisors and employees their concerns were dealt with, which sometimes that there may be serious consequences to j resulted from the lack of communication with the the public if safety issues are not addressed m a timely manner, which would reflect Panel poorly on the credibility of the NRC if l The Panel believes that the creation of Ad Hoc erroneous positions were not addressed and l Review Panels for the review of DPVs in program c rrected without delay, l offices and regions would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the DPV process.The pmel SPecify that DPV/DPO reviews are to be members should consist of technical experts in the conducted independently and may not mvolve subject area of the DPV (including a manager individuals who have participated in the

, , i who may also be a technical expert) as well as a formulation of the Agency's position that is  !

representative of the filer's choice. at issue.

l In conformance with a revised DPO process, the -

Emphasize to panel members the importance l Panel believes that the Executive Director for of actively involving the filer of a DPV/DPO j Operations also should appoint Ad Hoc Review from the beginning of a submittal to 1 Panels for DPOs similar to the panels used for the completed review by interacting with the filer review of DPVs. The panel should consist of to make sure all parties fully understand the technical experts to the extent possible (perhaps concern and the prevailing management i position.

including a manager who is also a technical expert) and a representative of the filer's choice.

Revise Management Directive 10.159 to RECOMMENDATION: Replace the current include the creation of Ad Hoc Review Panels ,

Standing Review Panel with Ad Hoc Review Panels for DPVs,in lieu of the Standing Review that are tailor madefor each DPVpanicularly Panel, as well as for DPOs.

NUREG-1518 4 l

o HOW WELL UNDERSTOOD training for resident inspectors to determine the applicability of similar training for the Orcrall Perception technical staff in Headquarters as it applies to the DPV/DPO process.

FINDING: Virtually all agency employees are aware of the DFV/DFO process; however, -

Encourage supervisors and employees to managers and employees needpositive attend courses on Effective Listening, reinforcementfrom top management down on Effective Communication (group and/or the value of the process and additional training interpersonal), and Conilict Resolution, to clanfy theprocess. emphasizing that these are areas essential to the DPV/DPO process.

The survey revealed that the vast majority of NRC employees (93%) know about and are generally -

Publish a revised Management Directive familiar with the DPV/DPO policy. Furthermore, 10.159 that displays a flow chart diagraming 54% of survey respondents agree that the the process earlier in the directive and DPV/DPO process is understandable. However, clarifies the DPV/DPO process.

additional efforts are needed to highlight the  ;

difference between a DPV and a DPO since 30%

Identify a point of contact who can provide of the employees are not aware of the difference. advice on the policy, its application to The Panel also noted a lack of consistency in managers and employees, and practical handling DPVs. insights to both filers and panel members; include such contact in the Telephone Among the inconsistencies identified to the Panel Functional Directory as well as Management were the following: (a) one filer submitted a DPO Directive 10.159.

without first going through the DPV process;(b)

DPV panels were occasionally convened that did U Pdate the brochure on the DPV/DPO not include a representative endorsed by the filer; Process reflectmg changes recommended m, this report.

and (c) DPV results were forwarded to the employee's direct supervisor or Office -

Distribute an all-employee announcement Dire tor / Regional Admimstrator rather than t highlighting the important changes made to t er.

the policy as a result of this review and dentify the new point of contact.

In the Panel's judgment, possible causes of this lack of consistency include the following- (a) Revise the Management Directive to provide l

managers and employees have not received

,, , for informing the filer of the option available consistent traimng m this pohey and process that permits him/her to submit names of throughout the agency; and (b) a specific pom, t of

, individuals for selection of a representative contact is absent for mformation related to on the Ad Hoc Review Panel.

DPV/DPO process in the telephone functional directory. -

Continue to periodically review actual submittals to ensure that the process is RECOMMENDATION: Improve both manager working as intended.

and employee understanding of the DPVIDPO policy and its proper implementation through several mitiatives:

y,,,,,, y;,;,,,,,,,,,,;,,

FINDING:Some NRC employees who have Provide training to managers and employees expressed a concern to management, often on the DPV/DPO process, with special iocus through the Open Door Policy, havefound their on the diiferences in the Open Door Policy, concerns unilaterally converted into a DPV the DPV process, and the DPO process. without their knowledge and their express desires.

Examine Regional Office Instructions (ROIs),

which include specific information about the Some employees whose records were reviewed and DPV/DPO process, and parts of the regular who participated in interviews expressed a strong 5 NUREG-1518

sense of surprise and dissatisfaction when the RECOMMENDATION: Develop a program of concerns that they brought to management acknowledgment of the effort putforth by an informally were converted into DPVs without individual who comesforth with valid technical their specific agreement or permission. concem.

RECOMMENDATION: Respect an employee's -

Send a letter of appreciation to the filer of a choice ofmechanism for airing a concern. concern for the level oi eifort needed to ,

present his/her view. l Revise internal Office and Regional procedures to treat concerns as informally as -

Instruct Ad Hoc Review Panels to consider desired by persons airing them. the merit of recommending awards for the filers.

Consider issuing a letter of acknowledgment to a filer of a concern to verify that it was received and to iterate understanding of the Public Access and Cordidentiality issue.

FINDING: Thepublic has ace?ss to the Check with a person raising a concern before recordspertaining to DPOs, but DPVs are not desn. gnat.nng a concern as a DPV accessible to the public. Furthermore, the issue of confidentiality of thefiler has not been Emphasize the importance of open communication among all staff members, especially between managers and empk>yees. The Panel studied the fact that DPVs are not made available to the public by means of placing them in the Public Document Room. The issue of o EFFECTIVENESS confidentiality of a filer's identity also was examined by the Office of the General Counsel as Employer Recognition requested by this Panel. 'Ihe full text of that analysis is presented m, Appendix B.

FINDING: As a result of considering potential j

awardsforfilers of DPVs/DPOs, the panel RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Change current '

found several areasfor improvement. procedures to permit filers of DPVs to forward their submittals to the PDR, with or without disclosure of The Panel's review of DPVIDPO files and their identities; (2) assure employees that the Agency interviews included the subject of recognition for will make every effort to ensure confidentiality but a filer's effort. Chairpersons involved in the review that it cannot guarantee it; and (3) assure that of DPVs/DPOs were asked if any filers were action be taken so that the filing and disposition of offered recognition for any of their eiforts. Only DPVs and DPOs be communicated to appropriate one chairperson acknowledged having given a managers within the NRC.

special award to the filer of a DPV. The person who had filed the DPV did not feel he had received a fair consideration of his view and Report Methodology  ;

subsequently filed a DPO on the same subject. In his case, the filer felt the award was only a token The Panel's findings and recommendations )

award and was not something he had sought in provided in this report are based primarily on i airing his view initially only through the Open four sources of information:(1) the results of an 4 Door Poliev. (It should be noted that his concern NRC employee survey addressing perceptions of  :

aired through the Open Door Policy was the NRC's Differing Professional Views or i unilaterally treated as a DPV.) Opinions Policy, (2) Panel interviews with Review Panel Chairpersons and filers of DPVs/DPOs Other filers expressed the view that they would (Appendix C),(3) background documents on the have liked to have received at least a letter of DPV/DPO process and its use, and (4) personal J acknowledgment for their concerted effort in the knowledge and experience from Panel members' development of a concern. involvement in the process.

NUREG-1518 6 4

l

l Employee Survey Chairpersons, and similar questions were asked of DPV/DPO filers. Interviews were designed to To gather m. formation from agency employees, the specifically address the experience and possible Panel used an agency survey. The specifics of the concerns of the individual.

survey process are discussed below.

The Panel made a concerted effort to contact Basic demographic information and perceptions individuals who had left the agency since they had of the current DPV/DPO process were identified filed DPVs/DPOs. Of the 23 individuals i

as content areas to be included in the survey. For ssociated with DPVs or DPOs,17 were still j the purposes of this study, demographic employed by NRC. 0f the 17,15 were interviewed information was collected on the respondent's ,

either m person or m, writmg. 'lko mdividuals current classification and the office or region in , ,

which the respondent works. 'Ihe principal focus preferred not to respond m any fashion. Of the six individuals who ha,d left the agency, one was

! of the survey was to gather information on the ,

nterviewed, four either declined to participate or effectiveness, understandability, and did not respond, and one was unreachable.

organizational climate of the DPV/DPO process.

J The interviews were conducted either in person or The survey (see Appendix C) was distributed to by telephone conference call. Two members of the all non-clerical employees in headquarters and all Regional Offices (approximately 2600 NRC Panel were present at all interviews: one, management representative and one Umon

! employees). Anonymity was guaranteed to all , ,

representative. A summary of these interviews is respondents.

provided in Appendix D.

l

! A total of 1409 questionnaires were returned and

tabulated by the Workforce and Organizational Background Documents and Guidelines l Analysis component in the Office of Personnel.

l Frequencies and percentages for each question The Panel reviewed a number of documents on (along with cross classifications by demographic the DPV/DPO process, including the previous l

information and a brief narrative) are available assessment and documentation regarding the use l

from the Office of Personnel, of the process. These documents provided input

' for assessing the degree to which the current p licy is being properly implemented, the degree Panel Interviews of improvement that has occurred smce the last Questions used by the previous panel were used assessment, and the specific changes that could be l

for the Region and Office Review Panel made to improve the process.

j l

l 7 NUREG-1518

APPENDIX A Special Review Panel Charter l

l

.. - - _. . . _- - - - - - - - - .. ~ . - -. .- - _ -

i I

spnaag

! y i UNITED STATES i j

e j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C. 30800 4001 s...../

l July 1, 1994 i

l MEMORANDUM FOR: Guy A. Arlotto, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards i

John M. Montgomery Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IV

! James F. McDermott, Deputy Director i Office of Personnel l Jim Thomas, President ,

National Treasury Employees Union (Chapter 208)  !

FROM: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations l- DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS SPECIAL REVIEW l

SUBJECT:

PANEL 4

! In July of 1990, the Commission approved a Special Review Panel's  !

l recommendations of Differing Professional Views or Opinions, and directed that l

after a suitable time, this matter be revisited to leara ha effective the '

recommendations have been.

l Accordingly, I am convening a Special Review Panel to assess the DPV/DP0 i process, including its effectiveness, how well it is understood by employees, l

and the organizational climate for having such views aired and properly decided. I am designating Guy Arlotto as Chairman of the Panel. A Union i Representative for the Panel is to be determined.

i Since the implementation of the new procedures, questions have arisen as to j the effectiveness of the DP0 procedures as they pertain to public access and

' confidentiality. Your review should address this item in particular.

In addition, the Panel will review differing professional views and opinions

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 adequately recognized for this contribution.

L

}

A-1 NUREG-1518 l

The results of the Panel's evaluation should be submitted to me in the form of a report, including proposed revisions to the Directives, if any, and award recommendations, if any, by October 18, 1994, unless an extension of time is necessary.

/

p[

Ja es M. Ta or ecutive Director for Operations cc: W. Russell, NRR R. Bernero, NMSS  ;

E. Beckjord, RES E. Jordan, AE00 P. Norry, ADM G. Cranford, IRM R. Scroggins, OC P. Bird, OP B. Hayes, 01 J. Lieberman, OE V. Miller, SBCR l R. Bangart, SP l R. Vollmer, OPP M. Springer, CONS T. Martin, RI S. Ebneter, RII J. Martin, RIII L. Callan, RIV j i

l NUREO-1518 A-2

l t

l i

i l

APPENDIX B l

j Confidentiality of DPV/PDO Filers 1

I l

1

CONFIDENTIALITY OF DPV/DPO FILERS Questions have arisen about the effectiveness of self-imposed as a function of policy, subject to the Differing Professional View or Opinion reasonable interpretation.

(DPV/DPO) procedures as they pertain to public access and confidentiality. A key concern is Even without Privacy Act applicability, it is whether the lack of assurance of complete possible to create certain expectations of privacy confidentiality will have a chilling effect on cognizable under the Freedom of Information Act individuals submitting DPVs or DPOs. The panel (FOIA) by promulgation of a policy to that effect.

looked into this question particularly by having This could be one consequence of extending a interactions with personnel from the Office of the grant of confidentiality to information that might General Counsel. not otherwise appear to require such protection.

However, the extent of auch protection also may be subject to legal limitations and could not be The major difference in accessibility to DPVs '#E'*8"nted as absolute. In any event, a legal versus DPOs is documented in Management -

determmation m a particular case would rest on Directive 10.159, Differing Professional Views or ,

review f the relevant facts m that instance and on j Opinions. All copies of DPOs are required to be full c nsideration of all pertment information. -

placed in the Public Document Room (PDR).

However, there is no requirement that DPVs be Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law placed in the PDR, only that NRC Offices and is generally applicable to this discussion, since Regions reta, m copies of any DPVs filed. DPVs such documents fall within the definition of are filed as the first step m an mformal process,

" agency record." The fundamental purpose of the with DPOs bemg the next step m elevatmg the FOIA is to promote disclosure, not to restrict it.

concern to a formal process. Thus, although FOIA law is pertinent to agency determinations concerning documents it is It is important to distinguish between the terms required to disclose and although it may provide

" confidentiality" and " privacy" as they are not legal authority to withhold information subject to synonymous, although the two refer to related a demand, it does not govern elective or voluntary  !

disclosures. Moreover, it would not be binding on l i concepts. " Privacy" is a term of art in the law and conveys certain legal rights and obligations. The the agency's policy of internal availability, because  !

term " confidentiality" carries with it no particular releases within the agency do not constitute disclosures under the FOIA, nor would it give rise legal significance, although it implies revrkted access in whatever manner the privilege may be to any legal cause of action occasioned by such conferred. Discussion of the present issue focuses access.

on the degree of dissemination appropriate for The first consideration is confidentiality within DPVs or DPOs and the extent of confidentiality the NRC. Because we have greater control of an afforded to the filers of those documents. For internal process, it can be structured to suit our these purposes, confidentiality refers only to the needs and, if adhered to properly, there would be filer's identity and not to the substantive contents reasonable assurance that the filer's of the document. confidentiality would be protected.

At the outset, it does not appear that this issue The second consideration is disclosure outside of raises any Privacy Act considerations, since DPVs the agency. At present, a DPO is automatically and DPOs are not filed, maintained, or retrieved made public by placing it in the Public Document by any individual identifier, which is the hallmark Room (PDR). If confidentiality was requested, the of a Privacy Act system of records, nor are they DPO document would have been redacted to contained within a published system of records protect the DPO filer's identity before release.

i listed in the agency's Federal Register notice of Privacy Act systems. As such, the Privacy Act Regardless of whether a concern was handled as a imposes no legal restrictions on disclosure of DPO or DPV,if the issue was of such significance these documents, either within the agency or that in accomplishing the agency mission the need outside. Therefore, controls on release would be for the public to know the identity of the filer was B-1 NUREG-1518

t i

of greater importance than the confidentiality of that, although some may argue that it is desirable the filer, then the NRC, relying heavily on input to handle DPVs and DPOs in the same manner from the legal staff, would have to balance the regarding disclosure to the public via the PDR, it individual's expectation of confidentiality against is the judgment of the panel that this would cause i the agency's obligation to inform the public to a severe chilling effect that would be counter-determme if disclosure of the filer's identity productive to the intent of the DPV/DPO process.

should be made. Agency regulations on The filer of a DPV also should be given the -

availability of official records would be consulted opportunity determine whether or not (1) he/she i in this process. However, in a traditional wants the DPV placed in the PDR and (2) he/she '

FOIA type analysis, the determination would be wants to include his/her name. In conjunction .

weighted heavily toward the privacy of the with this action, the filing and disposition of J individual. DPVs as well as DPOs should be communicated i to appropriate managers within the agency.

In exploring this question of confidentiality, the I panel asked itself two additional questions: (1)Is In summary, the panel recommends that the there adequate communication within the agency procedures make it clear that the agency will i regarding DPVs? (2)Is the basis for differences in make every effort to ensure confidentiality if  :

disclosure to the public for DPVs and DPOs well requested. However, because of FOIA founded and deserving of continuation? requirements or other exigencies with which the agency may be faced, it cannot be guaranteed. l Regarding question 1, if a DPV were raised in a The panel further recommends that the pro- '

regional office on a reactor safety issue, it would cedures not be changed to require that DPVs be be desirable, if not imperative, that it be placed in the PDR as are DPOs but that filers of communicated to appropriate managers in NRC. DPVs be given the opportunity to forward their l

- Our present process does not ensure this submittals to the PDR, with or without disclosure  ;

communication. of their identities. In addition, action should be taken to ensure that the filing and disposition of Regarding question 2, the panel discussed the DPVs and DPOs be communicated to ,

issue with OGC staff members and concluded appropriate managers within the NRC. i l

)

I l

l 1

l l

NUREG-1518 B-2

1 l

l APPENDIX C Survey Questionnaire I

l l

l l

1 l

i l

i l

l

W "c p 1h UNITED STATES g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 4001 g $

%, + , . . . / September 1, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: NRC Professional Staff FROM: James M. Taylor '

Executive Director for Oper i s

SUBJECT:

EVALUATION OF THE NRC PROCESS FOR EXPRESSING A DIFFERING VIEWPOINT The purpose of the attached questionnaire is to obtain information about the effectiveness of NRC's process regarding Differing Professional Views or Opinions. The results of this questionnaire will be used by a Special Review Panel comprised of representatives from management and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) to evaluate the current process.

This questionnaire has been endorsed by both NRC management and the 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 input is very important to ensure that this process remains a valuable and viable technique for expressing professional opinions. Please fold, staple, and return your completed questionnaire to Mail Stop T-3 D2, Office of Personnel, by September 21, 1994.

Attachment:

As stated C-1 NUREG-1518

l l

1 I

WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE NRC STAFF FEELS FREE TO  !

I COMMUNICATE THEIR PROFESSIONAL VIEWPOINTS AND WHETHER THERE IS GENERAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE INFORMAL AND FORMAL MEANS TO ASSURE THAT SENIOR MANAGEMENT j KNOWS ABOUT AND CONSIDERS A DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWPOINT ASSOCIATED WITH i TECHNICAL, LEGAL, OR POLICY' ISSUES.

THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ADDRESSES YOUR OPINIONS REGARDING THE NRC j POLICY FOR EXPRESSING A DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW (DPV) OR DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION (DPO).

PLEASE CIRCLE THE LETTER OF THE ANSWER THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR RESPONSE.

l

1. I am currently classified

a. In a non-supervisory role. j

b. As a Section Chief or other first line supervisor. '

c. As a Branch Chief. i

d. As an Assistant Director or higher.

2. Where do you work?

]

a. Commissioner's Office or Commission level staff office (ACRS,  !

ACNW, ASLBP, OCAA, OCA, 0GC, OIP, OPA, SECY, OIG)

b. EDO staff office (EDO, ADM, OC, OE, IRM, 01, OP, OPP, SBCR, SP)

c. AE00

d. NRR

e. NMSS

f. RES

g. Region I

h. Region II

1. Region III '

j. Region IV

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 policy.

NUREG-1518 C-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

5. How familiar are you with the difference between the process for submitting a DPV and a DPO?

a. Very familiar

b. Somewhat familiar

c. Limited 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 employees to express differing professional views or opinions?

a. Yes

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):

I

7. Overall, the organizational climate for using the DPV/DP0 process at the i NRC is favorable. l

a. Strongly agree

b. Agree

c. No opinion

d. Disagree

e. Strongly disagree PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE, AND RETURN YOUR COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO MAIL STOP T-3 02, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL. COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES MUST BE RETURNED BY SEPTEMBER 21, 1994.

C-3 NUREG-1518

l APPENDIX D Interview Questions and Results i

1 l

I i

l l

l 1

l l

1 l

l l

l l

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND RESULTS The Special Review Panel interviewed a total of 1. How did you first come to know of and later seventeen individuals who had filed Differing become in 7ed with the DPV/DPO Professional Views or Opinions (DPVs/DPOs) process?

and eleven chairpersons since the last Special Review Panel had been convened in 1989. This 2. Did the procedures allow the issue to be compares with the 1989 Special Review Panel who handled in a timely / effective manner?

interviewed three filers and four of nine chairpersons who were involved in DPVs or 3. How easy / difficult was it to find this DPOs. Of the interviews conducted by the 1994 information?

Panel, all DPVs were resolved and only one of the

4. Once you found it, how easy was the chapter three DPOs was not clearly closed. The details of t understand?

that case are discussed in Section A of this appendix. 5. Do you believe the informal DPV process has j been helpful in considering a differing )

In some of the DPVs, two or three individuals opinion? l proffered a single submittal on one issue of concern. 'Ib ensure that the Panel had a complete 6. What suggestions or comments do you have  ;

overview of the participants, all individuals to improve the DPV/DPO program? 1 involved in a single issue were interviewed. pg  ; ;g 7

was your view of the organizational climate for submitting a DPO? And now, after going A. Interviews With Individuals Who Filed through it, how would you describe the DPVs or DPOs organizational climate of the agency?

Purpose and Scope 8. Did you initiate an IG investigation as a result of any circumstances related to your Tb assess the overall effectiveness of the filing a DPV? If so, what happened?

DPV/DPO process, the Panel interviewed filers of DPVs/DPOs. The Panel also made a concerted 9. Is there anything else you would like to effort to contact individuals who had left the discuss with the Panel?

agency since they had filed DPVs/DPOs. Of the 23 individuals associated with DPVs or DPOS,17 Summary of Responses were still employed by NRC. Of the 17,15 agreed 1. How did you first come to know of and later to be interviewed in person or in writing. Two of become involved with the DPV/DPO the 17 individuals preferred not to respond. Of process?

the 6 individuals who had left the agency,1 was interviewed,4 either declined to participate or did Seven interviewees stated that they became not respond, and I was unreachable. aware of the process through training in their Regional Office and through Regional Office Procedures. Six interviewees were aware of j Before the interviews were conducted, the Panel the process through general knowledge from j agreed again that it was not in the panel's charter the Management Directive. One mtemewee  ;

to address the substance or merits of any of the was told by someone at a higher level to '

individual DPVs or DPOs discussed. handle h,s i concern through the DPO process. j One interviewee was informed that his The Office of the Inspector General was concern was being handled by management established since the 1990 Special Review Panel through the DPV process, even when the conducted its review. Therefore, question 9. is new concern had been raised through the Open l' to the review process. The questions asked during Door Policy. The two employees who declined each interview were as follows: to participate in the intemew process refused D-1 NUREG-1518

l for the reason that they had not filed DPVs then sent to the appropriate review group. 1 themselves. Instead, management had One interviewee expressed a concern that i handled their concerns aired through the review groups are not composed of Open Door Policy by converting the concerns individuals who are technically qualified to into DPVs. review certain complex issues. Such a composition would help the process.

2. Did the procedures allow the issue to be handled in a timely / effective manner? 6. What suggestions or comments do you have ,

to improve the DPV/DPO program?

Eleven interviewees felt that the review of concerns was performed m a timely manner. All but one interviewee offered comments i

Eree mterviewees did not beheve the rev,ew i and/or su88estions. Ei8ht interviewees I was performed in a timely manner. One beh.eved that the program was a good one interviewee did not respond to this question. that served a necessary purpose. Several in this group felt that they had received a fa,r i With regard to effectiveness, three hearing, even if their views were not adopted interviewees did not believe that the reviews by management.

were effective. The other interviewees Three interviewees expressed the general .

responded to the t,rnehness i issue without impression that most agency employees think I specifically addressmg effectiveness.

it is "certain death" for their careers to file a l

. . DPV or DPO. They are labeled as non-team I

3. How easy / difficult was it to find this players. One interviewee further observed l mformation? that there has been no agency statement of l support from the Chairman, Commission, or Sixteen of the m. tesviewees found the EDO welcoming DPVs/DPOs or stating that information on DPVs/DPOs easy to find.

diversity of opinion is a source of strength One interviewee did not really look for and constructive ideas. In addition, there has mformation because he was already aware of been no public recognition for individuals the process. filing DPVs/DPOs.

4. Once you found it, how easy was the directive Another interviewee believes that the agency to understand? should change the name of the process to a j phrase such as " minority view." A concern '

Thirteen of the interviewees found the raised by an individual is not necessarily one directive easy to understand, with one that constitutes a " differing" opinion. In this interviewee specifically stating that the filer's case, he had observed a gap in the Regional Operating Instruction was easier to regulations that needed to be addressed.

understand than the directive. One other Originally his concern had been expressed interviewee thought that the directive was a through the Open Door Policy, but his issue poorly written document. Another interviewee was handled as a DPV by his management, did not respond to this question. something the filer felt was not appropriate without discussing it first with him.

5. Do you believe the informal DPV process has been helpfulin considering a differing Several individuals expressed the concern  !

opinion? that the composition of the review panel was  ;

not conducive to the fair hearing of an issue.

Ten interviewees believed that the informal Some felt that panel members should not be DPV process had been helpful. Two " stake holders" with regard to an issue. The interviewees did not believe that it had been impression was that members would not be helpful. Two interviewees had filed DPOs, free of bias with regard to a previous with one individual filing the DPO because decision. Some felt that the panel members the DPV process had not proved satisfactory. did not have the technical knowledge One interviewee felt that it would be helpful qualifying them to perform a meaningful if all DPVs were sent to a central place and review and suggested that experts outside NUREG-1518 D-2

i l

NRC or experts in the Technical Training his management saying that individuals filing Center (TTC) would be valuable members for DPVs not only had a right to express a a review panel. Others felt that valid technical differing opinion, they also had a duty to do concerns sometimes became loaded so. Another interviewee in this group felt that politically because of the potentially negative he had received a very fair hearing, even if i response from licensees / utilities, thus his view had not prevailed. He panel had ,

I clouding the technical merit of a concern. taken the time to fully explain a position, which left the interviewee very satisfied that j his concern had been considered. Other j One interviewee felt that there is a lack of assistance in going through the process, interviewees with positive experiences had j

filed more than once without notiemg any  ;

especially when dealing with a complex technical issue. He would have very much chilh,ng effect in their careers and felt that i liked having someone to guide him through they would not hesitate to express other differmg views usmg the DPV mecham,sm.

the process and evaluate his document to determine if it was clearly presented. The  !

approach of using a Peer Review Group has, Several interviewees were aware of a general  ;

in fact, been instituted in one of the Regional feeling of hesitancy or reluctance to file Offices specifically to help someone prepare DPVs/DPOs for fear of harm to an  !

a DPV. individual's career. Another interviewee k)cated in a Regional Office, who had a One interviewee did not have direct contact positive experience with his filing a DPV, felt J with the review panel. As a result, whatever that Headquarters was not as open to points in the DPV that were unclear to the discussion of a concern until a formal process panel were not addressed at all. The had been initiated.

interviewee felt totally alienated from the j process, especially when the review occurred Nine interviewees felt very strongly that their l while he was on vacat,on. i He beheved that it involvement with DPVs/DPOs had very likely l would have been useful to have had a quashed their career at NRC. They felt that face-to-face review to make sure that the the organizational climate was not conducive (1) panel understood the issue and to a meaningful discussion of views that did (2) interviewee understood the panel and not match those of management and that what it planned to do. anyone taking on the burden of expressing a I concern was participating in a career-limiting One interviewee in a Regional Office felt that exercise. Among these interviewees, there was anonymous comments solicited from a general perception of management inflexi-licensees by NRC management about NRC bility or even intolerance in the handling of inspectors makes inspectors feel very issues brought forth as DPVs/DPOs, vulnerable. He felt that licensees should be especially in Headquarters. If a management required to put comments in writing and decision had been made, there was no flexi-substantiate whatever they bring forth. bility in the review of a differing approach.

His comment related especially to an Prior to participating in the process, what observation previously discussed that l

7. , ,,

was your view (opinion) of the organizational management involved m, an mitial decision climate for submitting a DPO? And now, was not m a position to change its own after going through it, how would you Previous decision. There were too many risks describe the organizational climate of the for them to lose face with peers, licensees, or cven Congress.

agency?

Six of the interviewees (all from Regional One interviewee succinctly summed up this Offices) felt that the organizational climate general impression: The climate at NRC was supportive and welcomed DPVs/DPOs. treats the DPO and its filer as a problem, not In fact, one of these interviewees remembered as a potential resource.

D-3 NUREG-1518

8. Did you initiate an IG investigation as a Two inte viewees believed that management result of any circumstances related to your had a negative bias toward employees who filing a DPV7 If so, what happened? question a management decision / judgment.

Rese interviewees felt that they had been Sixteen of the seventeen interviewees had not retaliated against in their jobs because they initiated any IG investigation, primarily had questioned management decisions that because the issues were technical. One they believed were not based on technical interviewee's experience with two DPOs issues. Another interviewee felt that anyone revealed that both issues had eventually gone submitting a DPV/DPO in his office would before the IG or its precursor. He did not be automatically retaliated against by being have a good experience from the IG Pl aced in a position that had nothing to do involvement in either case. with the individual's area of expertise and concern.

9. Is there anything else you would like to One interviewee had not been told that he discuss with the Panel? could suggest the name of an individual of his choice to be a member of the review panel.

Five interviewees had good experiences filing He sincerely wished that he would have DPVs. In fact, one had been surprised by the known and could have done so. He also

" pleasant experience." They all felt that they believed that basically management did not had received fair hearings on their issues. want to hear about problems. He also felt that a peer review panel would be useful.

One interviewee would like to see NRC publicly state that differing views are valuable B. Interviews With Region and Office Review to NRC. He also felt that DPVs as well as Panel Chairpersons DPOs should be filed in the Public Document Room. Purpose and Scope To assess the overall effectiveness of the Differing Another interviewee felt that a DPV/DPO Professional Views (DPV) and Differing Special Review Panel should go back to Professional Opinions (DPO) process, the Panel review the technical merit of cases. He also interviewed eleven of the twelve Office and felt strongly that Office or Regional Review Regional Standing Review Panel Chairpersons to Panels should bring in a filer to discuss in ascertain the level of DPV/DPO activity since the person the Panel's position. last revision of Management Directive 10.159. The interviews were designed to gain insights on how One interviewee believed that there should be well the process was working, how it could be more sensitivity and positive encouragement improved, and to determine if any individuals to use the DPV/DPO process. Management using the DPV/DPO process were given should perhaps emphasize the fact that it is a recognition.

duty. He also believed that, at a minimum, a letter of appreciation from management for a The questions asked during each interview were job well done in putting forth a DPV/DPO as follows:

would be very encouraging to the filers. This would be in lieu of an award if an award was 1. Have any DPVs been brought to your not appropriate. attention smce July 1990? If so, how many?

2. How many, if any, were not resolved as DPVs One other interviewee observed that NRC and, therefore, were or are being processed as management creates an inertia when handling DPOs?

DPVs/DPOs for fear of adding burdens on the industry. Therefore, employees often 3. How easy was the process to use?

believe that the outcome of a review of a DPV/DPO will not change anything other 4 Did the procedures allow the issue to be than hinder their career progression. handled in a timely and effective manner?

NUREG-1518 D-4 l

5. What suggestions or comments do you have an issue. One chairperson expressed a to make the DPV/DPO program more concern that if a specific timeline causes a effective or better understood? review to be too rushed, it reflects poorly on the panel. A review of the previously handled

6. Did the Office give any recognition to any DPV could revealincompleteness. Another individuals using the DPV/DPO process? chairperson in a Regional Office felt that schedules are sometimes difficult to meet Summa:y of Responses because regional personnel are so often on travel. One other chairperson felt that each

1. Have any DPVs been brought to your Office or Region should have a certam attention since July 1990? If so, how many?

amount of flexibility built into the process to deal with the more complex issues.

Seven offices and regions reported DPV activity (NRR, RES, Region I, Region II, 5. What suggestions or comments do you have Region III, Region IV, which meluded a to make the DPV/DPO program more former Reg,on i V submittal) since July 1990.

, effective or better understood?

Some offices and regions have had more than one Review Panel Chairperson during the One Regional chairperson suggested that a four-year period. NRR has had four Quality improvement Team be established, chairpersons during the period who worked perhaps a Peer Review Group, to study on a total of seven issues. The RES whether the program is user friendly. Issues chairperson worked on three DPV issues. that this group could address include the

'Ihe Region I chairperson worked on six following: (1) Give advice to individuals with issues and forwarded one issue to NRR for a concern about what process to use.

resolution. Three chairpersons in Region II (2) Answer questions about how to proceed.

worked on four issues. Two chairpersons in (3) Answer questions about organizational Region III worked on three issues and climate (such as, will my supervisor be forwarded one issue to NRR for resolution. offended, or the like?). That Region presently The chairperson in Region IV had five issues, has such a peer group helping an individual three of which were referred to NRR for with concerns to choose the best process. The resolution. issue of tracking DPVs should be considered and the outcome shared with employees. This

2. How many,if any, were not resolved as DPVs would open up information about the process and, therefore, were or are being processed as and make it less intimidating. 1 DPOs?

Another chairperson felt that perhaps NRC Of the seven offices and regions that reported should have a program similar to licensee DPV activity, only two issues became DPOs. programs for airing concerns with anonymity.

One issue became a DPO in NRR as did one For that NRC may need a separate staff to issue in Region IV. One of the DPOs handle such concerns, especially since the IG reviewed by this Panel was an issue that had only handles issues concerning fraud, waste, been ongoing since the last review cycle. This and abuse, not technical or safety issues. This case is discussed in Section A of this chairperson also described the process as appendix, perhaps being a failure of the system. The circumstance of escalating an issue to a DPV

3. How easy was the process to use? when an employee aired a concern through the open door policy was also discussed. 4 All chairpersons who were interviewed felt I that the process was easy to use. One chairperson cautioned that managers must make a strong and continuing effort to

4. Did the procedures allow the issue to be keep their minds open to concerns raised. A handled in a timely and effective manner? real problem occurs when a manager does not want to hear about problems. Issues are  !

On the whole, the chairpersons felt that the never black and white, but most often gray.-

procedures allowed for the timely review of Therefore, there will be disagreements, i

D-5 NUREG-1518

especially when dealing with highly intelligent extensive effort made by his management to l employees who really are experts in a specific communicate support of the process. l technical area. Most managers don't know all things about all issues anyway, so they need Another chairperson feels that the guidance to be open minded. for completion of DPV reviews should be more flexible, recognizing that some issues Another chairperson felt that the agency - can be very complex. Extensions of the panel needs to be very clear in communicating that - review period should not trigger reports to employees should have a feeling of freedom the EDO or Commission on "the reason for to raise issues. Employees should not be delay." ,

concerned that raising an issue will affect J their career._ NRC should emphasize that the One chairperson recommended that '

system is there for employees to use.

employees submitting DPVs should follow  ;

the directives more closely and adhere to the  !

One Regional chairperson expressed concern agreed-upn process. He also suggested that  ;

about the appropriateness of using the DPV a panel c lair should possibly be selected .!

process on a current enforcement action. The from another office. This could mitigate a  :

enforcement process itself allows for views to perceived chilling effect. A panel should also <

be expressed. Perhaps the Office of give the filer an opportunity to review the j Enforcement should be consulted on this type final draft of a resolution document to l of issue. This chairperson also observed that facilitate the process, again stressing the i management may not express support about importance of communication. l the process often enough and that the press  ;

of events and issues makes the open door not 6. Did the Office give any recognition to any  ;

as easily accessible. To him, the use of the individuals using the DPV/DPO process?  ;

DPV/DPO process shows a clear failure in j communication. Having learned how another One Regional chairperson recollected that  ;

Regional Office handles DPVs, he perceived individuals who had filed DPVs had received that the region handled the process much awards, but he was not sure that these better than others. He attributed this to the reflected any involvement with a DPV.  !

i NUREG-1518 D-6

k

! i I

1 j

APPENDIX E Management Directive 10.159, Differing Professional Views or Opinions, as approved March 20,1991 i

4 b

i i l

1 l Differing Professional i,

Views or Opinions

'%A5::4 :3$$ ,.:%dd,.22LL $::s::b1;l: > '

lV's LL

+.< :el .3w: .n 1.l ::v lGL.ilddld i

1 4

Directive l (Formerly 4h j O i MC 4125) E Va E Q 4

4 l

4 1 l

l l

2 ,

)

4 e

i i ,

I  !

d l

1 .

I a

4 i

8 e

4 1

i m:azaxu===:- ==u - >~~

~~ w ^

===r2 E-1 NUREG-1518 1

Diff3 ring Prof:ssi:n:1 Views cr Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Directive 10.159  ;

)

Contents Policy................................................................. 1 Differing Professional Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Differing Professional Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Obj ec t ives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Co mmissi o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 q The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 )

Office Directors and Regional Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 I Office or Regional Review Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Director. Office of Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Managers and Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 All Empl oyees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 i Spe cial Review Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Defi ni t ion s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Differing Professional View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Differing Professional Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Confidential Submittal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 R e t alia tio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appli ca b ili ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 E m pl oye e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 H a n d b oo k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Approved: March 20.1991 (Revised 8/29/91) i NUREG-1518 E-2

/#%  % U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

'" I i Volume: 10 Personnel Management

/ Part: 7 General Personnel Management

..... Provisions OP Differing Professional Views or Opinions Directive 10.159 Policy (10.159-01)

This directive and its handbook govern NRC policy, objectives, procedures, responsibilities. and other basic requirements and definitions established to provide for the expression and resolution of differing professional views (DPVs) or differing professional opinions (DPOs) concerning matters related to the agency's mission. The directive establishes an informal as well as a formal process for considering the differing professional viewpoints of employees for issues directly related to the mission of the NRC. (011)

It is the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the responsibility of all NRC supenisory and managerial persorgnel 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. (012)

It is not only the right but the duty of all NRC employees, including managers, to make known their best professional judgments on any matter relating to the mission of the agency. Moreover, both the general public and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission benefit when the agency seriously considers DPVs/DPOs. (013)

Each DPV/DPO will be evaluated on its own merits. The DPV/DPO process offers confidentiality, but not anonymity. (014)

Issues that do not qualify as differing professional views or opinions include issues that are or could have been appropriately addressed under grievance procedures, personnel appeal procedures, or are governed by law or government-wide  !

regulation: issues that are subject to collective bargaining; issues i

Approved: March 20,1991 (Revised 8/29/91) 1 )

l E-3 NUREG-1518 l l

l 1

Differing Professi:nal Views er Opinirns Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Directive 10.159 i

Policy (10.159-01) (continued) involving allegations of wrongdoing that are appropriately addressed by the Office of the Inspector General; issues submitted anonymously which, if safety significant, are appropriately addressed under NRC's Allegation Program; issues that are l deemed to be frivolous or otherwise not in accordance with the l policy underlying these procedures; and issues raised by an employee that already have been considered, addressed, or >

rejected pursuant to this directive absent significant new l information. (015)

Differing Professional Views (DPVs)

.. Issues raised through the informal process are called DPVs.

Responsibility for ensuring review of the DPV and making and j communicating a decision on the issue rests within the office or i region of the submitter. As necessary, this office or region i utilizes expertise elsewhere in the agency to assess or resolve the issue. Although the informal process may appear to be structured, it is intended to be a vehicle for the prompt, non-confrontational consideration of issues by an impartial reviewpanel, independent of an employee's direct supervisors, with a minimum of documentation. (016)

Differing Professional Opinions (DPOs)

. If the employee is not satisfied with the disposition of the issue through the informal process, the employee may file a DPO with the EDO if working in a region or an office reporting to the EDO, or with the Commission if working in an office reporting to the Commission. If an issue is submitted directly to the EDO or Commission prior to consideration as a DPV,' it is immediately forwarded to the submitter's office or region for review as a DPV through the informal process before action is considered through the formal DPO process. (017)

Section G of the Handbook Provides a Quick-Reference Guide for Processing Differing Professional Views and Opinions. (018) 2 (Revised 8/29/91) Approved: March 20.1991 NUREG-1518 E-4

Differing Professional Views or Opinions i Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions ,

i Directive 10.159 I l

I l

Objectives l (10.159-02)

. To establish an informal process for expressing Differing Professional Views (DPVs) and a formal process for expressing Differing Professional Opinions (DPOs). (021) l

. To ensure the full consideration and prompt disposition of ,

DPVs and DPOs by affording an independent. impartial review by qualified personnel. (022)

. To ensure that all employees have the opportunity to express DPVs/DPOs in good faith, to liave these views heard and considered by NRC management, and have protection from retaliation in any form for expressing a differing viewpoint.

(023)

! . To recognize submitters of DPVs/DPOs when they have contributed significantly to the mission of the agency. (024)

. To provide for periodic assessment, as necessary, to ensure that implementation of these procedures accomplishes the stated objectives and to recommend appropriate changes. (025) l Organizational Responsibilities ,

and Delegations of Authority (10.159-03)  ;

l The Commission (031)

. Notifies the Director, Office of Personnel, that a DPO has been received. (a)

. Determines the disposition of DPOs submitted by employees in offices reporting directly to the Commission and informs the DPO submitter of the final disposition and rationale. (b)

. Forwards to the EDO DPO submittals from offices reporting directly to the EDO. (c)

. Forwards submittals that have not gone through the DPV l process to the submitter's office director for processing as a DPV. (d)

. Forwards anonymous submittals to the Office of

Investigations, Office of the Inspector General, or appropriate Allegation Program Manager. (e)

Approved: March 20,1991 (Revised 8/29/91) 3 4

E-5 NUREG-1518

I Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Directive 10.159 )

The Commission I (031) (continued) l l

. Takes action. as .spropriate, on matters that appear to be of j immediate health or safety significance. (f)  !

I

. Utilizes appropriate and qualified sources inside and outside the NRC to assist in reviewing a DPO. (g)

. Provides a summary of the issue and its disposition in the Weekly Information Report. (h) j

. Maintains the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an i accurate record of the formal proceedings. Sends all completed i

DPO case files to the Office of Personnel. (i)

. Periodically reviews and modifies the DPV/DPO process based on  ;

recommendations from the EDO and the Special Review Panel on  :

Differing Professional Views or Opinions. (j) )

The Executive Director for Operations (EDO)

(032)

. Notifies the Director, Office of Personnel, that a DPO has been received. (a)

. Determines the disposition of DPOs submitted by employees in ,

offices reporting directly to the EDO and informs the DPO  ;

submitter of the final disposition and rationale. (b)

. Forwards to the Commission DPO submittais from Offices reporting directly to the Commission. (c)

. Forwards submittals that have not gone through the DPV process to the submitter's Office Director or Regional Administrator to be processed as a DPV. (d)

. Forwards anonyrnous submittals to the Office of Investigations, Office of the Inspector General, or appropriate Allegation Program Manager. (e) j l

. Takes action. as appropriate, on matters that appear to be of i immediate health or safety significance. (f)

. Utilizes app.apriate and qualified sources inside and outside the NRC to assist in reviewing a DPO. (g) 4 (Revised 8/29/91) Approved: March 20,1991 NUREG-1518 E-6

i Differing Professional Views or Opinions  !

Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions l Directive 10.159 l

The Executive Director for Operations (EI)O)  ;

(032) (continued)

. Provides a summary of the issue and its disposition in the Weekly  ;

Information Report. (h) -

. 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. (i)  ;

. Periodically appoints members to a Special Review Panel to review the effectiveness of the DPV/DPO process. (j)

. Reviews the Special Review Panel's report and makes  !

recommendations to the Commission, as necessary. (k)

Office Directors and Regional Administrators (033)  !

. Determine the disposition of DPVs submitted by employees within I their office or region and inform the DPV submitter of the decision and its rationale. (a)

. Forward anonymous submittals to the Office of Investigations, Office of the Inspector General, or appropriate Allegation Program Manager, (b) i

. Regional Administrators and Office Directors in AEOD, NMSS, NRR, and RES appoint and maintain a standing DPV Review Panel. All other Office Directors appoint DPV Review Panels j when a DPV is submitted by an employee assigned to their i office. (c) 1

. Refer all DPVs to the appointed DPV Review Panel for detailed review, except for matters that appear to be ofimmediate health or safety significance. (d)

. Take action on and advise the EDO or Commission of submittals that appear to be of immediate health or safety significance. (e)

. Utilize technical assistance from other NRC offices and regions or from outside the agency, as necessary, to address a highly specialized issue. If assistance from outside the agency is required.

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements must be considered. (f)

\

l l

Approved: March 20,1991 (Revised 8/29/91) 5 l E-7 NUREG-1518 l

Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Directive 10.159 i

i Office Directors and Regional Administrators  ;

(033) (continued)

. Proside a summay of the issue and its disposition in the Weekly Information Report. (g)  ;

. Maintain the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an i accurate record of the DPV proceedings. (h)

. When an employee chooses to continue the issue through the i formal DPO process, a copy of the DPV records should be  ;

provided to the EDO or Commission, as appropriate. (i) i Office or Regional Review Panel (034) ,

. Reviews DPVs and makes recommendations to the Office Director or Regional Administrator. (a)

. Determines whether sufficient documentation was provided by the DPV submitter for the Panel to undertake a detailed review. (b)

)

. Requests technical assistance through the submitter's Office - t Director or Regional Administrator, if necessary. (c)  ;

1

)

The Director, Office of Personnel (035) j

. Monitors the number of DPO submittals being processed in the agency. (a)  ;

. Retains all completed DPO case files of formal proceedings until  ;

such time as an assessment is completed by a Special Review  ;

Panel. (b)

. Ensures that appropriate parts of DPOs and their dispositions are i disseminated or made available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. (c)

. Provides administrative support to the Commission, EDO, Office Directors, Regional Administrators, and the Special Review Panel in carying out their responsibilities for DPV/DPO processing. (d)  ;

l j

6 (Revised 8/29/91) Approved: March 20,1991 NUREG-1518 E-8

i i

Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Directive 10.159

{

Managers and Supervisors (036)

. Upon receipt of a DPV/DPO, submit the incoming correspondence to the Office Director or Regional Administrator for further processing. (a)

. Advise and assist employees in administratively preparing DPVs/DPOs. (b) ,

. Determine the amount of work time and administrative support to  ;

be provided in response to a DPV/DPO submitter's request for assistance. (c)

. When mutually agreeable, maintain the confidentiality of the  !

DPV/DPO submitter by filing and discussing the DPV/DPO on behalf of the employee. (d) c All Employees (037)

Make known their best professional judgments on any matter -

relating to the mission of the agency by submitting a DPV/DPO when appropriate.  :

l Special Review Panel (038)

. Periodically assesses, as requested by the EDO, the DPV/DPO l

process including the effectiveness of the process, how well it is understood by employees, and the organizational climate for i having these views aired and properly decided. (a)

. Based on this assessment, prepares a report to the EDO that '

recommends appropriate actions to ensure the proper functioning l l

of the DPV/DPO process. (b) l

. 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. (c) i Approved: March 20',1991 (Revised 8/29/91) 7 )

E-9 NUREG-1518

i i

l Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Directive 10.159 i

Definitions  !

(10.159-04)

Differing Professional View (041)  :

A conscientious expression of a professional 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 invohing technical, legal, or policy issues. A Differing Professional View (DPV)is to be submitted in i writing to the employee's supenisor, line management official, Office Director, or Regional Administrator. ,

Differing Professional Opinion (042)

A DPV becomes a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) after it has been processed and decided and the submitter requests that the i matter be considered further by the EDO or Commission.

I Confidential Submittal I (043)

A DPV/DPO that is submitted by an employee through an NRC manager who knows that the submitter is an agency employee.

Anonymous submittals will not be considered under the provisions ,

of this policy.

Retaliation (044)

Injurious action taken against an employee because of the expression or support of a DPV/DPO.

Applicability (10.159-05)

Employees l (051)

Procedures for the expression and resolution of DPVs/DPOs apply to all NRC employees, including supervisors and managers. The policy supplements other stated rights, duties, and safeguards .

l 8 (Revised 8/29/91) Approved: March 20,1991 l

l NUREG-1518 E-10

I Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Directive 10.159 Employees (051) (continued) applicable to all Federal employees who make their views known i either within or outside their agencies, including:

. The independent right of free speech provided by the First .

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (a) l The right of Government employees to petition the Congress (5 U.S.C. 7102). (b)

The rights of employees to communicate directly with the i Congress as outlined in the Code of Ethics for Government Senice (10 CFR 0.735 - Annex A). (c)

Provisions of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act dealing with prohibited personnel practices and the regulations of the Merit System Protection Board. (d)

Handbook (10.159-06)

The handbook provides procedures for the expression and disposition of DPVs/DPOs.

l l

l i

Approved: March 20,1991 (Revised 8/29/91) 9 '

l E-11 NUREG-1518

i i

Differing Professionai l

Views or Opinions

. _  ; y . ..

A f

\ Handbook i

j (Formerly Appendix 4125) E %f n I 4O 4 G O

l l

}

t i

• ^ l $',. js.$ , ,, l:,,l,q;u ] gj,,,0,,r,, y,'Q h;[ij$^j'$$$$_

.lAl sa.s .S .

r Ysp$ow b $1 !) ' ,$ $,~N .' N:

v NUREG-1518 E-12

Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Directive 10.159 Contents Procedures for the Expression and Disposition of Differing Professional Views and Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I n tro d u ctio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Informal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Formal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Resources to Assist Originators of Differing Professional Views or Op i n i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Special Re view Pan el . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Prevention of Re taliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 DPV/DPO Processing Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 e

i Approved: March 20.1991 (Revised 8/29/91) i E-13 NUREG-1518 i

1 Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Handbook 10.159 i

I Procedures for the Expression and Disposition of Differing Professional Views and Opinions Introduction (A)

In the free and open discussion of agency issues, professional differences of opinion are common. Employees normally try, and are encouraged, to resolve their concerns through discussions with their co-workers and immediate supervisors. Individual employees are permitted to document their differing professional viewpoints and attach them to proposed staff positions or other documents, to be forwarded with the position as it moves through the management approval chain. Individual employees are strongly encouraged to discuss their differing professional viewpoints within the chain of command, especially with their immediate supervisors, as a first step  :

towards resolution of the issue. No recordkeeping or documentation of this discussion is required. (1)

Such differences of opinion, developed in the free anJ open discussion of work matters, become a Differing Professional View (DPV) or a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) only when the employee brings them to management's attention in accordance with these procedures. (2)

In these cases, informal discussions may not resolve the matter and an employee may be convinced that the agency and the public would be better served if another opinion prevailed. To further pursue such matters using these procedures, an employee must submit a written statement in accordance with this Management Directive. An employee may not use these procedures without submitting a written statement. (3)

Approved: March 20.1991 (Revised 8/29/91) 1 NUREG-1518 E-14

i l

l Differing Professional Views or Opinions l Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions l Handbook 10.159 i

l l

Informal Process for Expressing l Differing Professional Views (B) l i

Submittals. The DPV process is 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 l a DPV Review Panel within five calendar days. Individuals who are contemplating the submittal of a DPV and officials who receive a DPV are encouraged to contact the Director, Office of Personnel, for guidance on the process. (1)

The written statement, while being brief, must in all cases include the following:(2)

. a summary of the prevailing staff view, existing management decision or stated position, or the proposed or established agency practice. (a) l

- a description of the submitter's views and how they differ from any items discussed in a. above. (b)

. an assessment of the consequences should the submitter's position not be adopted by the agency. (c)

Certain types of issues are excluded from this process and may be l rejected by the Office Director or Regional Administrator. These l include those issues that do not qualify as a DPV as stated in 10.159-01.(3)

Confidentiality. If an employee wishes to have a differing view considered as a DPV but desires confidentiality, the employee may

, submit an unsigned DPV to an NRC manager who agrees to forward it l to the appropriate official. Disposition of the DPV will then be l

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) l l

2 (Revised 8/29/91) Approved: March 20,1991 E-15 NUREG-1518

Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Managernent Provisions Handbook 10.159 Informal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views (a)

(continued)

Anonymously submitted DPVs are not covered by the provisions of this Directive. Anonymous submissions will be referred to the Office of Investigations, the Office of the Inspector General, or the appropriate Allegation Program Manager. (5)

DPV Review Panels. A standing Review Panel is to be established and i

maintained in each Region, AEOD, NMSS, NRR, and RES to review DPVs. Directors of Offices other than those listed above should appoint DPV Review Panels only when a DPV has been submitted by ,

an employee of that 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 a third panel member. A third panel member will be chosen by the Chairperson from a list proposed by the employee submitting the DPV. (6)

The panel should normally review the DPV within seven calendar days  !

of receipt to determine if enough information has been supplied to undertake a detailed review of the issue. The panel should informally contact the employee or the manager who forwarded the DPV if additional information is needed. (7)

Those involved in the informal review process shall give priority handling to issues that may involve immediate or significant health and safety concerns. This includes calling such issues to the immediate attention of higher management. (8) .

1 Review and Decision. To the extent possible, DPV reviews should be conducted independently and not involve individuals who have  ;

directly participated in the formulation of the agency position that is at ;

1 issue. 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. (9) l I

Approved: March 20,1991 (Revised 8/29/91) 3 NUREG-1518 E-16

Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions i Handbook 10.159 Informal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views (a) l (continued) l The Regional Administrator or Office Director should review the panel's recommendations and provide the employee or manager who submitted the DPV with a decision and rationale for that decision.

Normally, this should occur within seven calendar days after receipt of the panel's recommendations. A summary of the issue and its l

l disposition should be included in the Weekly Information Report to advise interested employees of the outcome. (10) l Extenuating circumstances may cause delays in concluding the DPV process. Notice of delays should be communicated to the submitter, or in the event of a confidential statement, communicated to the manager l who forwarded the DPV. If the reviewand disposition of the DPVdoes not occur within 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 Commission, as appropriate. (11)

I Records. To reduce the administrative burden and resource expenditures, only the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record of the proceedings should be developed and maintained. These records should be maintained and available only within the Region or Office. If the matter is not settled to the satisfaction of the submitter and the submitter requests in writing that the issue be further reviewed under formal DPO procedures, the Office Director or Regional Administrator will forward the case file along with a statement of views on the unresolved issue (s) to the EDO or Commission, as appropriate, for consideration as a formal DPO. (12)

Formal Process for Expressing Differing Professional l Opinions (C)

Submittals. The formal DPO review process may be initiated by an employee, after the DPV process has been completed, by submitting a written statement to the EDO or Commission, as appropriate.

Employees in offices reporting to the EDO shall submit their DPO to i

4 (Revised 8/29/91) Approved: March 20,199'

! E-17 NUREG-1518 l

l

)

Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Ilandbook 10.159 G. DIFFERING PROFE05iONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS INFORMAL (DPV) PROCESS DPV SUBMITTER IP OFFICE / REGIONAL MANAGEMENT I

1r OFFICE / REGION REVIEW PANEL 1 P OFFICE DIRECTOR OR REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 1 r DPV SUBMITTER FORMAL (DPO) PROCESS 1 r DPO SUBMITTER "E REC p o noNS OR COMMISSION DPO SUBMITTER 8 (Revised 8/29/91) Approved: March 20.1991 NUREG-1518 E-18

Differing Professional Views or Opinions Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Handbook 10.159 DPV/DPO Processing Flow Chart (a) (continued)

1. Employee writes a Differing Professional View (DPV).

2. The DPV should be submitted directly or through line management, to the employee's Office Director or Regional Administrator. If submitted to another NRC' organization, it is forwarded to the employee's Office Director or Regional Administrator for processing through the informal DPV process.

The employee's Office Director or Regional Administrator acknowledges receipt and forwards the submittal to the DPV Review Panel for action. (AEOD, NRR, NMSS, RES, and Regions have standing DPV Review Panels; other offices appoint an ad hoc DPV Review Panel to review the submittal.) The Office Director or Regional Administrator appoints the panel chairperson and another panel member. The submitter may provide a list of qualified individuals to the panel chairperson who selects one of them to serve as a third member of the DPV Review Panel.

3. The DPV Review Panel considers the DPV and provides the submitter's Office Director or Regional Administrator a report of findings and a recommended course of action.

4. The Office Director or Regional Administrator considers the DPV Review Panel's report, makes a decision on the DPV, provides a written decision to the submitter, and includes a summary of the issue and its disposition in the NRC Weekly Information Report.

The DPV file is retained in the Office or 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 DPO statement expressing continuing concerns may be submitted to the Commission or EDO, as appropriate.

7. Upon receipt of a formal DPO, the Commission or EDO contacts  :

the submitter's Office Director or Regional Administrator to l obtain all records that may aid in the formal DPO review process.

When the Commission or EDO has completed its review, a written i decision is provided to the submitter and the case file is forwarded to the Office of Personnel.

8. Upon receipt of a decision from the EDO or Commission, the DPO process is concluded.

Approved: March 20,1991 (Revised 8/29/91) 9 E-19 NUREG-1518

Differing Professional Views cr Opininns Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Handbook 10.159 Formal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Opinions (C) (continued) the EDO. Employees in offices reporting to the Chairman or Commission shall submit their DPO to the Commission. (1)

Written DPO submittals must meet the same criteria established for the submittals of a DPV. Certain types of issues are excluded from this process and may be rejected by the EDO or Commission. Issues that do not qualify as a DPO are stated in 10.159-01.(2)

If the EDO or Commission receives a DPO that has not been considered through the DPV process, the EDO or Commission shall fonvard 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 prosisions of Section B of this Handbook. (3)

In considering the DPO, the EDO or Commission (as appropriate) should review the decision of the Office Director or Regional i Administrator as well as the Review Panel's recommendations and any other source who has reviewed the issue. (4)

Any NRC employee or manager involved in the DPO process shall give immediate priority attention to issues involving significant health and safety concerns. This includes advising the Office Director, Regional Administrator, or the EDO or Commission, as appropriate, of any immediate safety concerns. (5)

Review and Decision. To the extent possible, DPO reviews should be conducted independently and not involve indisiduals who have directly participated in the formulation of the agency position that is at issue. (6)

The EDO or Commission may utilize qualified sources inside and outside the NRC to assist in reviewing the DPO. (7)

The EDO or Commission (as appropriate) will provide the submitter with a decision and rationale for that decision. Normally, this should occur within 30 calendar days after receipt of all solicited views requested by the EDO or Commission. Extenuating circumstances may cause the EDO or Commission to delay in making a final decision. ]

1 1

Approved: March 20,1991 (Revised 8/29/91) 5 I NUREG-1518 E-20

i i

l . Differing Professional Views or Opinions

! Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions l Handbook 10.159 I i

Formal Process for Expressing l Differing Professional ,

l Opinions (C) (continued) l l

l In such cases, the submitter should be advised of the time frame for l considering the issue. (8)

After a decision on a DPO is made by the EDO or Commission and communicated to the submitter (or to the managerwho forwarded the DPO), the matter is considered closed and will not be considered further absent significant new information. (9) l Records. 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 l maintained. All completed DPO case files will be sent by the EDO and l

Commission to the Office of Personnel, which will make the file or appropriate portions of the file available to the public in accordance with the prosisions of the Freedom ofInformation Act. (10) '

l Resources to Assist Originators of Differing Professional Views or Opinions (D)

To assist submitters in preparing adequate written DPV/DPO statements, the submitter's immediate supervisor,in consultation with their manager, will determine the amount of the employee's work time and administrative support to be provided in response to the employee's requ est for assistance. If called to testify before a Licensing Board or an Appeal Board, the employee may receive, upon request, assistance from the legal staff to prepare testimony or other documents to be filed with the Board. Such assistance will be solely for the purpose of facilitating the filing of the necessary documents and will not constitute legal representation of the employee by the legal staff.

Special Review Panel (E) l A Special Review Panel should periodically assess the DPV/DPO process including its effectiveness, how well it is understood by l

l l

6 (Revised 8/29/91) Approved: March 20.1991 E-21 NUREG-1518

Differing Prcfissinnr1 Views cr Opini:ns Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Handbook 10.159 Special Review Panel (E)(continued) employees, and the organizational climate for having such views aired and properly decided. Members of the Special Review Panel will be appointed by the EDO after consultation with the Chairman. (1) ,

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 Summary will also be distributed to all employees. The EDO will fonvard the report with any comments or recommended Management Directive changes to the Commission for approval. (2)

In addition, the Special Review Panel will' review DPVs/DPOs completed since the last review to identify employees who have made significant comributions to the agency or to public health and safety but have not been adequately recognized for this contribution. When award recommendations have not been made, they may be made by the Special Review Panel in accordance with provisions of NRC's Incentive Awards Program (Directive 10.72)(MC 4154).Recommen-dations for awards will be included in the Special Review Panel's report. (3) i Prevention of Retaliation (F)

Any NRC employee who retaliates against another employee for submitting or supporting a DPV/DPO is subject to disciplinary action in accordance with Directive 10.99," Discipline, Adverse Actions,and Separations"(MC 4171).This applies to retaliatory actions as defined in this Management Directive 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. (1)

Employees who allege that retaliatory actions have been taken because of their submittal or support of a DPV/DPO may seek redress through the negotiated grievance procedure or through the grievance )

procedure described in Directive 10.101, " Employee Grievances" l (MC 4157). (2)  ;

DPV/DPO Processing Flow Chart (G) l Steps in processing a DPV/DPO are contained in the following flow chart and narrative explanation of the steps.

_ l Approved: March 20,1991 (Revised 8/29/91) 7 NUREG-1518 - E-22 l

G i

i.

i

)

i i

APPENDIX F

Revised Management Directive 10.159, l Differing Professional Views or Opinions i

h i I 1 i l i

I i

d j

! l I

J i

1 I

l l Differing Professional Views or Opinions I

i Directive

, 10.159 WM"'"M--wamanucwmw2*WMMMM3:CDCEMV 1%C?dEMG;""C3%M92135%"sEMimMMWmWQ$

n F-1 NUREG-1518

1 V:lume 10, Part 7 - General Personnel M:nagement Prcvisions Diftring Pr:fessional Views or Opinions Directive 10.159 Contents  ;

Policy............................................................... 1 Objecti ves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority . . . . . . . . . . 2 .

The Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Executive Director for Operations (EDO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Director, Office of Information Resources Management (IRM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Director, Office of Personnel (OP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Office Directors and Regional Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Defi n i t ion s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 I H an d book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 i

I I

I 1

l Approved: August 29,1991 ...

m (Revised: August 27,1996)

NUREG 1518 F-2

at:% U. S. Nuclear Regulatery Commissirn

[

• }

a Volume: 10 Personnel Management 4,

.....g Part: 7 General Personnel Management Provisions OP l

J l

1 i

Differing Professional Views or Opinions l Directive 10.159 Policy (10.159-01) i I It is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to maintain a working environment that encourages employees to make known I 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.

Objectives '

(10.159-02)

To establish an informal process for expressing differing professional views (DPVs) and a formal process for expressing differing professional opinions (DPOs) concerning issues directly !

related to the mission of the NRC. (021) i e To ensure the full consideration and prompt disposition of DPVs j and DPOs by affording an independent, impartial review by  !

qualified personnel. (022) l lb ensure that all employees have the opportunity to express DPVs and DPOs in good faith, have these views heard and considered by NRC management, and, to the extent practicable, participate fully in the process from beginning to end. (023) e To protect employees from retaliation in any form for expressing a differing viewpoint. (024)

To recognize submitters of DPVs and DPOs when they have contributed significantly to the mission of the agency. (025) e To provide for periodic assessment, as necessary, to ensure that implementation of these procedures accomplishes the stated

, objectives and to recommend appropriate changes. (026)

Approved: August 29,1991 (Revised: August 27,1996) 1 F-3 NUREG-1518

Volume 10, Part 7 - G:ner:1 Personnel M: nag: ment Pr visi:ns Differing Professional Views or Opinions Directive 10.159 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority (10.159-03)

The Commission (031) e Notifies the Director, Office of Personnel (OP), that a DPO has been received. (a) e Convenes an ad hoc review panel for the review of a DPO. (See Handbook 10.159(C)(2) for more information on the panel.) (b) e Isetermines the disposition of DPOs submitted by employees in offices reporting directly to the Commission and informs the DPO submitter of the final decision and the rationale for it. (c) e 'Ikkes action, as appropriate, on matters that appear to be of immediate health or safety significance. (d) e Utilizes appropriate and qualified sources inside and outside the NRC to assist in reviewing a DPO. (e) e Provides to the Office of t'te Executive Director for Operations (EDO) a summary of the issue and its disposition for the Weekly i Information Report. (f) e Reviews applicable portions of DPV/DPO files for information exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and identifies sach information, if any, to the Director, Division of .

Freedom of Information and Publications Services (DFIPS), )

Office of Administration (ADM). (g) e Sends all completed DPO case files to OP in accordance with Handbook 10.159(C)(4). (h) e Periodically reviews and modifies the DPV and DPO process l based on recommendations from the EDO and the special review l l

panel. (i)

Executive Director for Operations (EDO)

(032) e Notifies the Director, OP, that a DPO has been received. (a)

Approved: August 29,1991 2 (Revised: August 27,1996)

NUREG-1518 F-4

l t

V lume 10, Part 7 - General Personnel Mrnagement Pr2 Visions l

Differing Professional Views or Opinions Directive 10.159 Executive Director for Operations (EDO) '

(032) (continued)

! e Convenes an ad hoc review panel for the review of a DPO (see l Handbook 10.159 (C)(2) for more information on the panel). (b)

, e Determines the disposition of DPOs submitted by employees in '

l offices reporting directly to the EDO and informs the DPO submitter of the final decision and the rationale for it. (c) l l e Takes action, as appropriate, on matters that appear to be of f

immediate health or safety signi5cance. (d) e Utilizes appropriate and qualified sources inside and outside the  !

l NRC to assist in reviewing a DPO. (e) e Provides a summary of the issue and its disposition in the Weekly Information Report (NRC weekly memorandum from the Office of the EDO to the Commissioners). (f) l l e Reviews applicable portions of DPV/DPO files for information exempt under FOIA regulations, and identifies such information, if any, to the Director, DFIPS, ADM. (g) l e Sends all completed DPO case files to OP in accordance with Handbook 10.159(C)(4). (h) e Periodically appoints members to a special review panel to review l the effectiveness of the DPV and DPO process. (i) e Reviews the special review panel's report and makes ,

recommendations to the Commission, as necessary. (j) l e Publishes periodic announcements declaring that diversity of viewpoints is a strength and a potential source of valuable ideas.(k)

Director, Office of Information Resources Management (IRM)

(033) l e Establishes records disposition schedules for DPVs and DPOs in accordance with regulations of the National Archives and Records Administration. (a) l Approved: August 29,1991 (Revised: August 27,1996) 3 l

F-5 NUREG-1518

i Vime 10, Part 7 - General Personnel M: nag:m:nt Prcvisions Differing Professi:nal Views or Opini:ns Directive 10.159 Director, Office of Informction Resources Management (IRM) ,

(033)(continued) ,

e Maintains at the NRC File Center all completed DPOs according l to the authorized disposition contained in NUREG-0910,"NRC Comprehensive Records Disposition Schedule."(b)

Director, Office of Personnel (OP)

(034) e Monitors the number of DPO submittals being processed in the  ;

agency.(a) e Transmits all completed DPO case files for review and disposition in accordance with Handbook 10.159(C)(4). (b) e Ensures that appropriate parts of DPOs and their dispositions are disseminated or made available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom ofInformation Act. (c) e Provides administrative support to the Commission, EDO, office directors, regional administrators, and the special review panel in carrying out their responsibilities for DPV and DPO l processing. (d)

Office Directors and nal Administrators  !

e Determine the disposition of a DPV submitted by an employee within their office or region and inform the DPV submitter of the decision and its rationale. (a)

. Appoint an ad hoc review panel when a DPV is submitted by an employee assigned to their office or region, and include an employee designated by the Office of Enforcement to be a fourth member of a reviewpanel when the subject of the DPV involves an enforcement issue. (See Handbook 10.159 (B)(3)(b) for more information about the panel.)(b) e Thke action on and advise the EDO or Commission of submittals that appear to be of immediate health or safety significance. (c) e Utilize technical assistance from other NRC offices and regions or from outside the agency, as necessary, to address a highly specialized issue. (d) l Approved:' August 29,1991 4 (Revised: August 27,1996)

NUREG-1518 F-6 )

. _ l

V:lume 10, Part 7 - General Pers:nnel Minig m:nt Prcvisitns Differing Professional Views or Opinions

, Directive 10.159 Omce Directors and Regional Administrators (035)(continued) e Provide a summary of the issue and its disposition in the Weekly Information Report. (e) e Submit a completed DPV (or applicable portions of DPV) through the Director, OP, to the PDR when the submitter requests in writing that the DPV be made public in accordance with Handbook 10.159(B)(4)(e). (f) e Maintain documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record of the DPV proceedings in accordance with Handbook 10.159(B)(5). (g) e Review applicable portions of DPV/DPO files for information exempt under FOIA regulations, and identify such information, if any, to the Director, DFIPS, ADM. (h) e When an employee chooses to continue the issue through the formal DPO process, a copy of the DPV records should be provided to the EDO or Commission, as appropriate. (i)

Definitions (10.159-04)

Confidential Submittal. A DPV or DPO that is submitted by an employee through an NRC manager who knows that the submitter is an agency employee.

Differing Professional Opinion. A DPV becomes a DPO after it has been processed and decided and the submitter requests that the matter be considered further b/ the EDO or Commission.

Differing Professional View. A conscientious expression of a professional 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.

Retaliation. Personnel action that is taken (or not taken in the case of a ,

personnel benefit), recommended, or threatened because of the l expression or support of a DPV or DPO (see " Prohibited Personnel l Practices").

1 Approved: August 29,1991 (Revised: August 27,1996) 5 F-7 NUREG-1518

V:lume 10, Part 7 - G:neral Personnel Mrnagement Prcvisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions  :

Directive 10.159 i

Applicability (10.159-05)

The policy and guidance in this directive and handbook apply to all NRC employees, including supervisors and managers.  !

Handbook '

1 (10.159-06)

The handbook provides procedures for the expression and disposition ,

of DPVs or DPOs.

References (10.159-07)

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I).

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

Management Directive 10.72," Incentive Awards."

10.99," Discipline, Adverse Actions, and Separations."

10.101, " Employee Grievances." ,

NUREG-0910, "NRC Comprehensive Records Disposition Schedule."

" Prohibited Personnel Practices," Merit System Principles (5 U.S.C.

2302(a)(2)(A)).

i i

Approved: August 29,1991 6 (Revised: August 27,1996)

NUREG-1518 F-8

l Differing Professional i

l Views or Opinions i

i i

numssimrarenamermaremramraammenwarawmematamremrmme=ranam 4

l Handbook l 10.159 i

h w n g gj w gg..w,..,...:w wx<M N M mmxgamme

- -*.w wu xWsez+ mus;;MNtMMT7:! +

':w M F9 NUREG-1518

Vclume 10, Part 7 - General Personnel Managtm:nt Provisions Differing Profession:1 Views er Opinions Handbook 10.159 i

Contents Procedures for the Expression and Disposition of Differing Professional Views and Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introd u ction (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Informal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views (B) . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Submittals (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Confidentiality (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DPV Ad Hoc Review Panel (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Review and Decision (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Re cords (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Formal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Opinions (C) . . . . . . . . . . 7 Su bmi ttals (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 DPO Ad Hoc Review Panel (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Review and Decision (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Re cords (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 i Resources 'Ib Assist Originators of Differing Professional Views or Opi nio ns (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Special Review Panel (E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Prevention of Retaliation (F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Exhibit Processing Differii.g Professional Views or Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Approved: August 29,1991 ...

(Revised: August 27,1996 ) m

Volume 10, Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159 Procedures for the Expression and Disposition of Differing Professional Views and Opinions Introduction (A)

In the free and open discussion of agency issues, professional differences of opinion are common. Employees normally try, and are encouraged. to resolve their concerns through discussions with their co-workers and immediate supervisors. Individual employees are permitted to document their differing professional viewpoints and attach them to proposed staff positions or other documents, to be forwarded with the position as it moves through the management approval chain. Individual employees are strongly encouraged to discuss their differing professional viewpoints within the chain of command, especially with their immediate supervisors, as a first step towards resolution of the issue. No recordkeeping or documentation of this discussion is required. (1)

A difference of opinion, developed in the free and open discussion of work matters, only becomes a differing professional view (DPV) or a differing professional opinion (DPO) when the employee brings it to management's attention in accordance with these procedures. (2)

In some cases, informal discussions may not resolve the matter and an employee may be convinced thLt the agency and the public would be better served if another opinion prevailed. To file a differing professional view, an employee must submit a written statement to his or her supervisor, line management official, office director, or regional admimstrator using the procedures in this handbook.

Anonymous submittals will not be considered under the provisions of this process. (3)

Approved: August 29,1991 (Revised: August 27,1996) I F-11 NUREG-1518

Volume 10, Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Difhring Professisnal Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159 IHir0dHCtIGH (A)(continued)

Issues that do not qualify as differing professional views or opinions include issues that are or could have been appropriately addressed under grievance procedures, personnel appeal procedures, or are governed by law or Governmentwide 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 significant, are appropriately addressed under NRC's Allegation Program; issues that are deemed to be frivolous or otherwise not in accordance with the policy underlying these procedures; and issues raised by an employee that already have been considered, addressed, or rejected pursuant to this directive absent significant new information. (4)

Issues raised through the informal process are called DPVs.

Responsibility for ensuring review of the DPV and making and communicating a decision on the issue rests within the office or region of the submitter. This office or region may utilize 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, nonconfrontational consideration of issues by an impartial review panel, independent of an employee's direct supervisors, with a minimum of documentation. (5)

If the employee is not satisfied with the disposition of the issue through the informal process of a DPV, the employee may file a DPO. The DPO would be filed with the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) if working in a region or an office reporting to the EDO, or with the Commission if working in an office reporting to the Commission. If an issue is submitted direct]y to the EDO or Commission before consideration as a DPV, it is immediately forwarded to the submitter's office or region for review as a DPV through the informal process before action is considered through the formal DPO process. (6)

The exhibit to this handbook provides a quick-reference guide for processing DPVs and DPOs. (7)

Approved: August 29,1991 l 2 (Revised: August 27,1996)

NUREG-1518 F-12

Volume 10, Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions

~

Differing Professionel Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159 Informal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views (a)

Submittals (1)

The DPV process is initiated by a written statement submitted by an employee of NRC either through the management chain or directly to the office director or regional administrator who will then forward it to a specially convened ad hoc review panel within 5 calendar days.

Employees who are contemplating the submittal of a DPV and officials who receive a DPV are encouraged to contact the Director, Office of Personnel (OP), for guidance on the process. (a)

The written statement, while being brief, must in all casesinclude-(b)

A summary of the prevailing staff view, existing management decision or stated position, or the proposed or established agency practice (i)

A description of the submitter's views and how they differ from any issues discussed in item (i) above (ii)

An assessment of the consequences should the submitter's position not be adopted by the agency (iii)

All submittals must go through the DPV process before they can be processed as a DPO. (c)

Certain types of issues are excluded from this process and may be rejected by the office director or regional administrator. These include those issues that do not qualify as a DPV as stated in Section (A)(4) of this handbook. (d)

Confidentiality (2)

If an employee wishes to submit a DPV but desires confidentiality, the employee may submit an unsigned DPV to an NRC manager who agrees to act as a surrogate submitter. Disposition of the DPV will then be completed in accordance with these procedures. To protect the employee's confidentiality in such cases, it may not be possible to provide acknowledgment of receipt of the statement or disposition directly to the submitter. In these 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 disposition or resolution of the DPV. (a)

Approved: August 29,1991 (Revised: August 27,1996) 3 F-13 NUREG-1518

V:lume 10, Part 7 - G:n:ral Parsonnel M:n:gement Pr visions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159 Informal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views (B)(continued)

Confidentiality (2)(continued)

Anonymously submitted DPVs are not covered by the provisions of this directive and handbook. Anonymous submissions will be referred to the Office ofInvestigations, the Office of the Inspector General, or the appropriate Allegation Program Manager. (b)

DPV Ad Hoc Review Panel (3)

An ad hoc review panel will be established on a case-by-case basis in each office and region to review each DPV. The panel is appointed in writing by the regional ad:ninistrator or office director. (a)

The panel should include-(b)

. A chairperson and one member appointed by management who is technically qualified in the subject area being reviev. red (i) e A third panel member chosen by the ad hoc panel chairperson from a list proposed by the employee submitting the DPV (The submitter may consult with the exclusive bargaining unit representative to nominate qualified individuals who are willing to serve as a third panel member.)(ii) e A fourth panel member chosen by the Director, Office of Enforcement (OE), when the subject of the DPV involves an enforcement issue (iii)

The panel shall-(c) e Review the DPV and make recommendations to the office director or regional administrator (i) e Determine whether sufficient documentation was provided by the DPV submitter for the panel to undertake a detailed review (ii) e Request technical assistance through the submitter's office director or regional administrator, if necessary (iii)

Approved: August 29,1991 4 (Revised: August 27,1996)

{

NUREG-1518 F-14

_- - - - - - - _ - - - - a

Volume 10g Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159 Informal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views (n)(continued)

DPV Ad Hoc Review Panel (3) (continued)

The panel should normally review the DPV within 7 calendar days of receipt to determine if enough information has been supplied to undertake a detailed review of the issue. The panel should informally contact the employee or the manager who forwarded the DPV to discuss the informatian provided and request any additional information, if needed. (d)

Those involved in the informal review process shall give priority htpdling to an issue that may involve immediate or significant health and tafety concerns. This includes calling the issue to the immediate attention of higher management. (e)

Review and Decision (4)

To the extent possible, DPV reviews should be conducted independently and not involve individuals who have directly participated in the formulation of the agency position that is at issue.

The review should include communication with submitters (or their

- representative) to provide them with the opportunity to further clarify their views. (a)

Office directors or regional administrators may utilize technically qualified sources inside and outside the NRC to assist in reviewing the DPV. If assistance from outside the agency is required, the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act must be considered. (b)

Once the panel has received the necessary information to begin a review, the panel normally should take no more than 30 calendar days to make a recommendation to the office director or regional administrator. (c)

The office director or regional administrator should review the panel's recommendations and provide the employee or manager who submitted the DPV with a decision and rationale for that decision.

Normally, this should occur within 7 calendar days after receipt of the panel's recommendations. (d) l Approved: August 29,1991 (Revised: August 27,1996) 5 F-15 NUREG-1518

Volume 10, Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159 Informal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views (B)(continued)

Review and Decision (4)(continued)

A summary of the issue and its disposition should be included in the Weekly Information Report to advise interested employees of the outcome. If the submitter indicates in writing a desire to have his or her DPV made available to the public, with or without release of his or her name, portions of the DPV releasable under the Freedom of Information Act, as determined by the Division of Freedom of Infoimation and Publications Services (DFIPS), Office of Administration (ADM), will be submitted through the Director, OP, to the Public Document Room (PDR) by the appropriate office director or regional administrator at that time. (e)

Extenuating circumstances may cause delays in concluding the DPV process. Notice of delays should be communicated to the submitter or, in the event of a confidential statement, communicated to the manager who forwarded the DPV If the review and disposition of the DPVdoes not occur within 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 for employees of these offices reporting directly to the EDO or to the Commission for employees in offices reporting directly to the Commission. (f)

Records (5)

DPV records should be maintained and available only within the region or office unless the DPV was sent to the PDR,where it also will be available. A copy of the panel report and decision memorandum should be sent to the Director, OE, whenever a DPV ad hoc review panel includes a member chosen by OE. (a)

If the DPV is not settled to the satisfaction of the submitter and the submitter requests in writing that the issue be further reviewed under formal DPO procedures, the office director or regional administrator will forward the original case file along with a statement of views on the unresolved issue (s) to the EDO or Commission, as appropriate, for consideration as a formal DPO. (b)

Approved: August 29,1991 6 (Revised: August 27,1996)

NUREG-1518 F-16

Volume 10g Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159 Informal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Views (n)(continued)

Records (5)(continued)

Offices and regions shall maintain files of resolved DPVs for 2 years after a special review panel has published the report of its review. Then the DPV files shall be retired to the NRC Archival Facility through IRM for a 10-year retention in accordance with NRC Schedule 1-2.2.b. (c)

Formal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Opinions (C)

Submittals (1)

The formal DPO review process may be initiated by an employee, after the DPV process has been completed, by submitting a written statement to the EDO, for employees in offices reponing to the EDO, or to the Commission, for employees in offices reporting to the Chairman or Commission. (a)

Written DPO submittals must meet the same criteria established for the submittals of a DPV. Certain types ofissues are excluded from this process and may be rejected by the EDO or Commission. Issues that do not qualify as a DPO are stated in Section (A)(4) of this handbook. (b)

If the EDO or Commission receives a DPO that has not been considered through the DPV process, the EDO or Commission shall forward it within 5 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 handbook. (c)

DPO Ad Hoc Review Panel (2)

The EDO or Commission will convene an ad hoc review panel and appoint a chairperson and second technically qualified panel member.

The submitter of the DPO may submit names for the chairperson to select a third panel member. (a)

The panel-(b) e Reviews the DPO and makes recommendations to the EDO or Commission (i)

Approved: August 29,1991 (Revised: August 27,1%

7 F-17 NUREG-1518

Volurn210, Pcrt 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159 Formal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Opinions (C)(continued)

DPO Ad Hoc Review Panel (2)(continued) e Determines whether sufficient documentation was provided by the DPO submitter for the panel to complete a detailed review (ii) e Requests technical assistance from appropriate source (s) within or outside the agency, as necessary (iii)

Any NRC employee or manager involved in the DPO process shall give immediate priority attention to issues involving significant health and safety concerns. This includes advising the office director, regional administrator, or the EDO or Commission, as appropriate, of any immediate safety concerns. (c)

Review and Decision (3)

To the extent possible, DPO reviews should be conducted independently and not involve individuals who have directly participated in the formulation of the agency position that is at issue. (a)

The EDO or Commission may utilize technically qualified sources inside and outside the NRC to assist in reviewing the DPO. In considering the DPO, the EDO or Commission should review the decision of the office director or regional administrator as well as the ad hoc review panel's recommendations and any other source who has reviewed the issue. (b)

The EDO or the Commission will provide the submitter with a decision and rationale for that decision. Normally, this should occur within 30 calendar days after receipt of all solicited views requested by the EDO or Commission. (c)

Extenuating circumstances may cause the EDO or Commission to delay in making a final decision. In such cases, the submitter should be, advised of the timeframe for considering the issue. (d)

After the EDO or Commission makes a decision on a DPO and communicates the outcome to the submitter (or to the manager who forwarded the DPO), the matter is considered closed and will not be considered further absent significant new information. (e)

Approved: August 29,1991 8 (Revised: August 27,1996)

Volume 10, Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159 Formal Process for Expressing Differing Professional Opinions (C)(continued)

Records (4)

The EDO and Commission will send all completed DPO case files to OP. Normally, the case file will include, at a minimum. the DPVs and DPOs submitted by the filer, the DPV and DPO panei reports, and the DPV and DPO decision memoranda. Any other documents, such as other correspondence related to the DPV and DPO between the submitter and the EDO or the Commission, deemed by the EDO or Commission to be essential to an understanding of the case also may be forwarded as a part of the case file. The memorandum transmitting the file to OP should include a list of documents contained in the file and a statement indicating which documents, or portions of documents, may be released to the public, subject to a routine Freedom ofInformation Act review. (a)

OP 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. To accomplish this, OP will request the Director, DFIPS, ADM, to initiate a review of the documents identified by the EDO or Commission as releasable to ascertain which portions of the record, if any, are exempt from disclosure to the public. The Freedom of Information (FOI) staff will request offices and regions to review the documents to determine which documents or portions of documents should or should not be released to the public. The offices and regions conducting the reviews should then advise FOI staff of those documents or portions of documents that should or should not be released to the public. FOI staff will then resolve any discrepancies and return the case file to OP, indicating which documents or portions of documents the reviewers have identified as releasable to the public. (b)

OP will transmit a copy of the releasable portions of the file to the Document Control Desk, Information Resources Management (IRM), for Nuclear Documents System processing and distribution to the PDR. PDR staff will maintain the sanitized copy consistent with the retention of the official record. OP also will transmit the original DPO file to the NRC File Center, IRM, for retention. DPO files are not currently scheduled and must be retained by the NRC File Center until a records disposition schedule for this material is approved by the National Archive and Records Administration. (c)

Approved: August 29,1991 (Revised: August 27,1996) 9 F-19 NUREG-1518

Volume 10, Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159_

Resources To Assist Originators of Differing Professional Views or Opinions (D)

'Ib assist submitters in preparing adequate written DPV or DPO (

statements, the submitter's immediate supervisor, in consultation with other management officials, will determine the amount of the employee's work time and administrative support to be provided in response to the employee's request for assistance. If called to testify before a licensing board or presiding officer, 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.

Special Review Panel (E)

A special review panel periodically assesses the DPV and DPO process, including its effectiveness, how well it is understood by employees, and the organizational climate for having such views aired and properly decided. Members of the special review panel are '

appointed by the EDO after consultation with the Chairman. (1)

The special review panel will prepare a report on the basis of its assessment and submit it to the EDO for consideration.The EDO will forward the report with any comments or recommendations to the Commission for approval. The report or its executive summary also will be distributed to all employees. (2)

In addition, the special review panel will review DPVs and DPOs 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 adequately recognized for this contribution. When award recommendations have not been made, they may be made by the special review panel in accordance with provisions of NRC's

" Incentive Awards Program" (Management Directive (MD) 10.72).

Recommendations for awards will be included in the special review panel's report. (3)

Approved: August 29,1991 10 (Revised: August 27,1996)

NUREG-1518 F-20 -

Volume 10, Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Handbook 10.159 Prevention of Retaliation (F)

Any NRC employee who retaliates against another employee for submitting or supporting a DPV or DPO is subject to disciplinary action in accordance with MD 10.99, " Discipline, Adverse Actions, and Separations." This applies to retaliatory actions as defined in the directive and to all prohibited personnel practices specified in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, as amended. (1)

Employees who allege that retaliatory actions have been taken because of their submittal or support of a DPV or DPO may seek redress through the negotiated grievance procedure or through the grievance procedure described in Directive 10.101, " Employee Grievances." (2) i Approved: August 29,1991 l (Revised: August 27,1%

11 F-21 NUREG-1518

Volume 10, Par 2 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Exhibit 10.159 Exhibit Processing Differing Professional Views or Opinions INFORMAL (DPV) PROCESS g DPV SUBMTIER OFFICE /REGONAL O- MANAGEMENT OFFICEMEGON

@ AD HOC REVIEW PAMEL OFRCE DRECTOR OR

@ REGONALADMISTRATOR DPV SUBMITTER FORMAL (DPO) PROCESS DPO SUBMTTER b d

ExeCunvE DReCTOR @ ca oN FOR OPERADONS OR AD HOC REVIEW BWm AD HOC REVIEW PANEL PANEL e @

Approved: August 29,1991 12 (Revised: August 27,1996)

NkJREG-1518 F-22

Volume 10g Part 7 - General Personnel Management Provisions Differing Professional Views or Opinions Exhibit 10.159 Exhibit (continued)

Key:

@ Employee writes a differing professional view (DPV).

W ne DPV should be submitted directly or through line management to the employee's f:;g office director or regional administrator. If submitted to another NRC organization, it is forwarded to the employee's office director or regional administrator for processing through the informal DPV process. He employee's office director or regional administrator acknowledges receipt and forwards the submittal to the ad hoc review panel for action within 5 days. The office director or the regional administrator appoints the panel chairperson and a technically qualified panel member.%e submitter may provide a list of qualified individuals to the panel chairperson who selects one of them to serve as a third member of the ad hoc review panel.

as The ad hoc review panel considers the DPVand provides the submitter's office director or W regional administrator a report of the findings and a recommended course of action, usually within 7 calendar days.

ns ne office director or the regional administrator considers the ad hoc review panel's W report, makes a decision on the DPV, provides a written decision to the submitter, and includes a summary of the issue and its disposition in the NRC Weekly Information Report, usually within 30 calendar days. De DPV file is retained in the office or region. If the submitter has indicated in writing a desire to have his or her DPV made available to the public, with or without release of his or her name, portions of the DPV releasable under the Freedom ofInformation Act will be submitted through the Director, OP, to the Public Document Room by the office director or regional administrator at that iime.

@ On the basis of the office director's report, the submitter may consider thc matter closed.

If the submitter does not consider the matter closed, a written differing professional

@ opinion (DPO) statement expressing continuing concerns may be submitted to th Commission, for offices reporting directly to the Commission, or to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO), for offices reporting to the EDO.

A Upon receipt of a formal DPO and after making sure that the issues contained therein W have first been processed as a DPV, the Commission or the EDO contacts OP and may contact the submitter's office director or regional administrator to obtain all records that may aid in the formal DPO review process. The Commission or EDO convenes an ad hoc review panel and appoints a chairperson and second technically qualified panel member.

De submitter of the DPO submits names for the chairperson to select a third panel member.

@ ne ad hoc review panel considers the DPO and provides the Commission or EDO a report of findings and a recommended course of action.

@ ne Commission or EDO considers the ad hoc reviewpanel's report, makes a decision on the DPO, and provides a written decision to the submitter within 30 days of receipt of the panel's recommendation. The case file is then forwarded to the Office of Personnel.

Q Upon the submitter's receipt of a decision from the Commission or EDO, the DPO process is concluded.

Approved: August 29,1991 (Revised: August 27,1996) 13 F-23 NUREG-1518

MRC FORM 335 (2 89) u.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER NRCM 1102. (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol, supp., Rev, m :2o2 and Addendum Numbers,if any.)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET (see estna: sons on the rewme)

2. TlrLE AND SUBTITLE NUREG-1518 Differing Professional Views or Opinions:

1994 Special Review Panel s.

DATE REPORT PUBLISHED MONTH YEAR

{

_ September 1996

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR (S)

6. TYPE OF REPORT

7. PERIOD COVERED (socivere ostes) 8.prwde PERFORMING ORGANIZATION name and marbng ad$ess } - NAME AND ADDRESS (aNRC. g a Dwaron, otoce or Rega. u s Nucseer Reputatory commissa, and ma ,

Policy and Labor Relations, Office of Personnel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION . NAME AND ADDRESS (tt NRC. type "Same as above; #e.e and mmeng ad*ess } i..g a;.NRcovrson, onice orRegem u s NucsearRogulatory commissa, Same as above.

10 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ^

11. ABSTRACT (200mordsordess) in July 1994, the Executive Director for Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appointed a Special Review Panel to assess the Differing Professional View or Opinion (DPV/DPO) process, including " ..its effectiveness, how well it is understood by employees, and the organizational climate for having such views aired and properly decided." An additional area within this review wes to address "...the effectiveness of the DPO procedures as they pertain to public access and employees who made significant contributions to the agency or to public health and s recognized for this contribution.

Views or Opinions. Provided in this report are the results of an employee opinion surve suggestions from interviews with individuals who had submitted a Differing Professional View or Opinion, as well as with agency managers directly involved with the Differing Professional Views or Opinions process; and the Special Review Paners recommendations for improving the DPV/DPO process.

1

2. KEY WORDS/DEScRIPTORS (t.ist nords orphrases that m# assst researchers a bcahng the reporf) 13 AVAILABL4TY SIATLMW differing professional view differing profession opinion unlimited l sDecial review panel 14 secuRrrY CLASSIFICATION

~ ~~

DPV/DPO process inaFage) unclassified

' (Thrs Report) unclassified 15 NUMBER OF PAGES

16. price NHC i OHM 3JS (2MI The form was em:grorwcally produced by Ehte Federal Forms. Inc

Printed on recycled paper Federal Recycling Program l

AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications s Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555-0001

2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P. O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161-0002 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica-tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents availablo for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; licensee event reports; vendor reports and conospondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensco docu-ments and correspondence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the Government Printing Offico: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference pro-ceedings, international agreement reports, grantee reports, and NRC booklets and bro-chures. Also available are regulatory guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regula-tions, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

Documents availablo from the National Technical information Service includo NUREG-series reports and technical reports prepared by other Federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents availabio from public and special technical libraries includo all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, Federal and Stato legislation, and congressional reports can usually bo obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC con-ference proceedings cro availablo for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publica-tion cited.

Single copics of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon wntten request to the Office of Administration, Distribution and Mail Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint North,11545 Rockville Pike, Rock-ville, MD 20852-2738, for use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018-3308.

N U

C P

E N

A WL A

S HR E

A _

N R U L I T

Y OF G E FF T GIN OC OUT I

RI A LE PL ,N AD RB I

D T S VU AS C OT TI E EN RA 2 Y T US 5 C E 0

SS S

,E 5O 5

$ - M 3 0 0

0 0M 0I 1 S IS O

N W2 ay A

S h y l0 HN I.

N . [N 55 5 a{ 2 y}

03 o U n N 0 49 R

{M3 y

B L

i I c

a I r A y N 0 1 D

C N 9 S a g S o V g C g S g

PS OP SE P TC E AI R G AL M E I U S TS AT NR N DN NA O. CF D E A G

- E R 6

7 SD PM AA I

Dll