ML20202C299
| ML20202C299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/14/1998 |
| From: | Baker E NRC |
| To: | Zamzack AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C242 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9802120214 | |
| Download: ML20202C299 (1) | |
Text
.
t Frome Edward Baker Tot internet aol.comitamtack Date 1/14/98 5:19pm Subject Your letter to Mr. Borchardt Mr. Borchardt referred your letter to me for response because I am the author of Inspection Procedure 40001. If I understand your question correctly, you are asking if an employee could review how the Employee Concerns Program (ECP) resolved an issue submitted by another employee.
First, let me clarify that the NRC does not require licensees to have an ECP and therefore does not impose any requirements on how the program should be run. Who the licensee allows to see the files is totally within the licensee's discretion. Therefore, whether you can see the ECP file on concerns previously submitted by another employee is solely the licensee's decision.
I can tell you from personal experience based on reviewing several programs and discussing anonymity and confidentiality issues with a large percentage of the ECP managers in the nuclear industry that most of the programs do not allow employees to review the files on issues submitted by other employees, even if the file is redacted to remove the employee's identity. One reason for the restriction is that although the identity has been redacted, one may be able to determine the identity of the employee from the issue that was submitted. The NRC handles requests for the release of information concerning allegations the NRC receives in a sim!.lar manner.
If you have any additional questions, you can either call me at 800-368-5642 ext 8529 or email me at etb9nrc. gov. Please note that I sent a cc of this response to Mr. Borchardt for his information.
CC: RWB1 I
9802120214 980206 PEMt I&E l MISC PDR )
I