ML20217F998
| ML20217F998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1998 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217F307 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804020130 | |
| Download: ML20217F998 (77) | |
Text
.
h c \o.sure. 2
+
STATUS OF ALLEGATION PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1997 ANNUAL REPORT 9004020130 980325 "P
- DR ADOCK 050002 5
___ _m
EXECUTIVE SUM MARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGATION PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ORGANIZATIONAL DIFFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 R egion i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 R egio n l i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Reg io n 111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 R egio n l V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Office of State Programs (OSP) . ................................ ...... 7
SUMMARY
OF AUDIT RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................7 Region i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... ......... 7 Regio n 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
- Reg ion 111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........8 R egion l V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 NRR............................................... .......... 9 NMSS...........................................................10 OSP............................................................10 RESOURCES EXPENDED ON ALLEGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE ALLEGATION PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Recommendations of Review Team for Reassessment of the NRC's Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 General Accounting Office Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 TREN DS IN ALLEGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Allegation Trends at Reactor Licensees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 M illstone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 St. Lucie . . . . . . . ... ....................... ................. 15 Zio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Sa n Onofre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C lint on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Bru n swick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 India n Point 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 H at ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Dre sden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Allegation Trends at Material licensees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Allegation Trends at Vendors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 C ON CLU SI ON S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
RECOMME N DATI ON S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 APPENDIX 1 Graphs of General Allegation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 APPENDIX 2 Review Team Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 APPENDIX 3 GAO Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 APPENDIX 4 Tables of Allegation Statistics for Operating Reactor Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 APPENDIX 5 Tables of Allegation Statistics for Materials Licensees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 APPENDIX 6 Two-Year Trend Plots for Selected Reactor Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 l
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
' in SECY-94-089, " RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE REVIEW TEAM FOR REASSESSMENT OF THE NRC'S PROGRAM FOR PROTECTING ALLEGERS AGAINST '
RETALIATION," the staff committed to have the Agency Allegation Advisor (AAA) provide an annual report to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) that assesses the conduct of the allegation program in each office and region. This annual report provides that assessment in the sections on audit results and the allegation process This report also provides a status on completing recommendations for improving the allegation program, a review of allegation data l for adverse trends for reactor and materials licensees and vendors, and a review of the resources expended on follow up of technical allegations. Because the Office of Investigations prepares an annual report covering the follow up of allegations involving wrongdoing, this annual report does not specifically address activities concoming those allegations.
Overall, the implementation of the allegation program has improved in the last year. The findings from the 1997 audits and NRC's performance measures for the allegation program indicate improvements have occurred in receiving, documenting, tracking, and completing evaluations of allegations. The timeliness and quality of communications with allegers have also improved. While there has been a general improvement in the handling of allegations, the audits continue to identify isolated examples of untimely resolution of allegations and communications with allegers. However, the number of occurrences declined throughout Fiscal Year 1997 (FY97).
The NRC review team that reassessed the NRC's program for protecting allegers from I
retaliation made 47 specific recommendations addressing how the agency could improve its program for protecting allegers against retaliation. The staff has completed action on 45 of the 47 recommendations. The two remaining recommendations are developing a survey instrument for assessing whether a licensee has established a safety conscious work environment and submitting proposed legislation to revise Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to provide realistic time frames for the Department of Labor's (DOL) reviews of discrimination complaints. The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)is currently conducting a review of survey methods and the staff recently received comments from the DOL on the proposed legislative changes.
In preparing this re' port, a five-year history of allegations was reviewed for reactor and material licensees and vendors to identify adverse trends. With the increased emphasis on establishing and maintaining a safety-conscious work environment, the staff modified the analysis this year to focus on allegations that originated from on-site sources, either licensee or contractor employees, former employees, or anonymous sources. For reactor licensees, the staff used the criteria outlined in the October 21,1997 memorandum to the Commission from the EDO to identify reactor sites warranting additional review. Based on applying those criteria to the allegations from on-site sources, nine reactor sites warranted a more in-depth review, Millstone, St. Lucie, Zion, San Onofre, Clinton, Brunswick, Indian Point 3, Hatch, and Dresden. Each of these sites is discussed in the report.
None of the materials licensees approach the level of allegations received at the reactor sites listed above. Four was the highest number of allegations received from on-site sources 1
concoming a materials licensee during FY97. Consequently, the review did not identify any materials licensees warranting additional review based on FY97 allegation statistics.
Additionally, the number of allegations received conceming vendors or contractors also indicates that no additional review is warranted.
Over the last five years, agency records indicate that the NRC has expended an increasing number of resources on follow up of technical allegations. The hours expended have increased from approximately 31,000 in FY92 to 67,700 in FY97. This represents approximately 51 Full Time Equivalency (FTE) employees, or six more than the agency budgeted in FY97. A significant portion of this increase is attributable to the increased emphasis and management attention on accurately recording the time spent on resolving allegations. Additionally, the number of allegations received in FY97 was 4 percent greater than the number received in FY96. The staff is also expending more resources administering the improvements to the allegation program that were implemented in the last three years, e.g., increased quantity of information tracked in the computer database for allegations, more frequent and complete written communication with allegers. Whether the trend of increasing time expended on allegations will continue, depends on the number of allegations the NRC receives in the future, the complexity of those allegations, and any additional improvement in the accuracy of recording time spent on allegations.
In summary, the changes the staff planned to make to the allegation program have been implemented. While these changes have had a positive affect on the handling of allegations, continued emphasis must be placed on properly implementing the allegation program in handling each allegation.
2
1 .
1 .
l OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGATION PROGRAM The Commission established the allegation program to provide a way for individuals working in NRC-regulated activities and members of the publi:: to provide safety and regulatory concems directly to the NRC. The program also provides a mechanism for the staff to track concems provided to the NRC to ensure that safety significant concems are evaluated and resolved in a timely manner and the results of NRC's actions are communicated to the individual that submitted the concems, when appropriate.
To emphasize the importance of the program and improve its implementation, the staff completed a number of actions during the year. These actions included, The EDO issued an announcement expressing his expectations for the staff's handling of allegations.
. The sta' ff published a brochure that described the NRC's allegation process.
The staff developed and implemented an improved software package that enhanced the capability to track and trend allegations.
l The staff developed standard training material on the allegation program to ensure that l NRC employees were consistently trained on the important aspects of the allegation
! program.
l .
The staff developed standard formats for correspondence with allegers to ensure that all l necessary issues are discussed. The format for acknowledgment letters requires a I
restatement of the concems as understood by the staff. Closure letters now require a restatement of the concem and a description of NRC's basis for closing the concem.
The staff developed cover sheets for allegation correspondence to increase the staff's l recognition of the special handling requirements needed to protect the identity of l allegers.
l l .
The Senior Management Meeting assessment process was revised to include a discussion of insights gained from the allegation program into whether licensees had established and are maintaining an environment conducive to raising safety and regulatory concems.
l These actions are discussed in more detailin the body of this report. Based on the results of j the 1997 audits and the allegation program performance indicators as of December 29,1997, 1 the changes appear to be having a positive affect on the allegation program. I 3
DESCRIPTICN OF ALLEGATION PROCESS All of the regions and offices generally follow the same basic process in receiving, processing, and evaluating allegations. Variations in implementing the allegation process are discussed following the description of the basic process.
. The allegation coordinator is the focal point for receiving, processing, and closing allegations and communicating with allegers All incoming written allegations are forwarded to the allegation coordinator and calls made to the toll-free safety hotline are directed automatically to the regional allegation coordinators based on the geographicallocation of the caller, i.e., an
. alleger's call is directed to the region that covers his or her location.
The allegation coordinators review the incoming allegations to determine whether the issues involve reactor, material, or vendor issues and the immediacy of safety issues. Allegation review boards (ARBS) are scheduled based on this review. The allegation coordinators prepare
- the material for the ARBS, provide the ARB members with guidance on implementing the allegation process, and keep the minutes for the meetings. ARBS are normally held once a week and allegations are usually discussed within two weeks of receipt. Following the ARB, the allegation coordinators note the directions to the staff in the allegation tracking system Acknowledgment letters to allegers are usually sent after the ARBS are held.
The responsible division director or his or her designee chairs the ARBS. Other ARB participants include technical staff and managers, and in cases involving wrongdoing, the regional counsel and a representative from the Office of Investigations (01) field office. The exception to this practice is ARBS for allegations of wrongdoing by agreement state officials.
These ARBS a.e chaired by the Director, Office of State Programs (OSP) and attended by the General Counsel; the Director, Ol; and the allegation coordinator for OSP. Representatives of the region responsible for overseeing the agreement. state usually participate by telephone.
The assignment of allegations for evaluation and closure varies slightly between the regions and offices. Generally, the technical staff evaluates technical allegations and provides a copy of an inspection report or a memorandum to the allegation coordinator with the result of the evaluation. The allegation coordinator reviews the information provided, and if all of the issues have been sufficiently addressed, then he or she prepares a closure letter to the alleger based on the information provided. If they have not addressed the issues, the allsgation and the evaluation are usually discussed at a subsequent ARB to determine what additional actions are necessary to complete the evaluation and close the allegation.
.For wrongdoing issues for which Ol completes an investigation and reaches a conclusion whether the allegation was substantiated, the report of investigation serves as a basis for responding to the alleger. The responsible technical division will review the report and provide
. input to or prepare a draft closure letter to the alleger. In those cases when 01 does not complete the investigation to the point where they can conclude whether wrongdoing occurred, the allegation coordinator prepares a closure letter that informs the alleger that because of limited resources and the relative safety significance of the wrongdoing issue, the investigation was terminated without reaching a conclusion whether wrongdoing occurred.
4
~
' ORGANIZATIONAL DIFF5RENCES Region 1 -
Region i generally follows the process outlined above. In addition to the duties described in the general description, the Region I allegation coordinator is responsible for the quality of corre-spondence to allegers and prepares and signs acknowledgment, status, and closure letters.
The Region I program is currently staffed with a GG-14 senior allegation coordinator, a GG-13 allegation coordinator, and a GG-8 administrative assistant. The administrative assistant was added in early 1995 and filled on a rotational basis until October 1995, when it was established as a permanent position. The GG-13 allegation coordinator was added in January 1997.
Following the 1997 audit of the allegation program, the region provided additional technical,
' assistance to the allegation staff to help in closing older allegations and complete the backlog of correspondence. The additional resources have resulted in improved timeliness of correspondence with allegers and ck.sure of allegations.
Over the last five years, Region i las received the most allegations (1372) (Graph 7), of which approximately 70 percent were reactor allegations and 30 percere,were materials allegations.
The majority of reactor allegations are assigned to the Division of Reactor Projects (DRP) for resolution through inspections by the resident inspectors or referrals to licensees, with the Division of Reactor Safety (DRS) providing assistance in specialized areas.
Region 11 Region il generally follows the process outlined above through the holding of the ARB. Its program is staffed with two permanent GG-14 allegation coordinators and a GG-9 staff assistant that supports both the enforcement and allegation staff. The region has had two allegation coordinators during the last five years. Over the last five years, Region ll has received the third highest number of allegations (1202) (Graph 8), of which approximately 85 percent were reactor allegations and 15 percent were materials allegations. The majority of the reactor allegations are assigned to DRP for evaluation, with DRS providing assistance in specialized areas.
In FY96, Region ll revised its process for closing allegations to require the responsible division to determine if all the issues have been addressed sufficiently and to draft and issue the closure letter. The process was revised to make the divisions more accountable for the quality of the basis for closure and the closure letter and to improve the timeliness of closing allegations. The 1997 audit of the implementation of the allegation program in Region ll indicates that closure letters are more timely and of appropriate quality.
Region lli Region 111 generally follows the process outlined above. In addition to the duties described in the general description, the Region lil allegation coordinator is responsible for the quality of correspondence to allegers and prepares and signs acknowledgment, status, and closure letters. Historically, its program had been staffed by a GG-13 allegation coordinator. During 5
FYg7, the region established and filled a GG-14 senior allegation coordinator position and replaced the GG-13 allegation coordinator.
Of the four regions, Region lil, historically, has received the lowest number of allegations. Over the last five years, Region lli has received 980 allegations (Graph 9), of which approximately 66 percent were reactor allegations and 33 percent were materials allegations. In FY96, the region adopted a policy of assigning the majority of the reactor allegations to DRS for evaluation to allow resident inspectors more time to perform scheduled inspection activities and respond to events.
Region IV
, Region IV generally follows the process outlined above. In addition to the duties described in the general description, the Region IV allegation coordinators are responsible for the quality of correspondence to allegers and they prepare and sign adrs.'edgment, status, and closure letters. Its program is currently staffed by a permanent GG-14 allegation coordinator, a technical rotational position with a two-year term, a part time administrative assistant, and secretarial assistance as needed For consistency in the comparison of the workload and resources, Region V allegations and -
resources were included in Region IV statistics for FY92 through the completion of the merger in FY94. Except for the period from August 1994 through October 1995, the program has been staffed with two technical staff members. During the last five years Region IV received the secorcJ largest number of allegations,1290 (Graph 10). Approximately 75 percent were reactor allegations and 25 percent were materials allegations. The majority of the reactor allegations are assigned to DRS for follow up and resolution. The intent of assigning the majority of the allegations to DRS is to not divert the attention of resident inspectors from oversight of licensee operations.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
NRR generally follows the process described above. The coordinator prepares and signs acknowledgment, referral, and status letters. However, closure letters are prepared and signed by the responsible technical branch chief, The program is staffed by a GG-14 senior allegation coordinator and a second GG-13/14 allegation coordinator position is awaiting selection. Over the five-year period, NRR has received 531 allegations (Graph 11), of which almost all were either reactor or reactor-related vendor allegations.
Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)
NMSS generally follows the process described above. The program is managed by a GG-14 staff member who spends approximately half his time on allegations. Over the last five years NMSS has received 157 allegations (Graph 12), almost all of which dealt with materials issues.
In addition to the duties described in the general description of the allegation process, the NMSS allegation coordinator is responsible for the quality of correspondence to allegers and he prepares and signs acknowledgment, status, referral, and closure letters.
i-6 l
Office of State Programs (OSP)
Following the 1997 audit of the allegation program, OSP assigned a staff member collateral duties as an allegatson coordinator. OSP generally follows the process described above.',The coordinator prepares and signs acknowledgment, referral, and status letters for allegations involving wrongdoing by agreement state officials. A graph of OSP's allegation activity was not prepared because of the small numbers of allegations handled by the office
SUMMARY
OF AUDIT RESULTS The 1997 audit results show that overall the implementation of the allegation program is improving. The audits show improvements in the timeliness and c'uality of communications with allegers, the documenting of concerns and the bases for closing allegations, maintaining a status of the resolution of concems, timeliness of ARBS, and the timeliness of resolving
]
allegations. These improvements are corroborated by the performance indicators, as well.
However, continued management attention is needed to avoid unnecessary delays in resolving individual allegations that are within the staff's control.
The 1997 audits consisted of a review of a sample of open and closed allegation files, interviews of NRC staff members involved in the allegation process, and discussions with the allegation coordinators concoming specific allegations and the allegation process The selected allegations included tchnical and wegdoing issues, including harassment and intimidation, involving reactor, materials, and agreement state licensees, and contractors. The goal for the sample size was 10 percent of the total number of allegations received during the audit period, which was approximately one year. The actual sample size varied slightly from the goal, depending on the complexity of the allegations selected for review.
A summary of the results of the audits of each region and NRR, NMSS, and OSP follows. The summary includes a discussion of relevant performance indicators. The performanca of each region, NRR, and NMSS in conducting ARBS and issuing acknowledgment letters is compared with the performance goals established in the performance plan for FY98. ARBS are to be conducted within 30 days of receipt of the allegation. The goals for issuing acknowledgment letters are 90 percent within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 days.
Region i The audit of Region l's implementation of the allegation program occurred in April 1997 and included a review of 27 allegation files. The regional staff responded very quickly to allegations with obvious safety significance. These allegations were brought to an ARB and evaluated expeditiously. In general, allegations were thoroughly reviewed, with well-documented bases for closure. Additionally, the timeliness of acknowledgment letters and initial allegation review boards continued to improve. During FY97 Region I held 293 initial ARBS and issued 212 acknowledgment letters. Only four ARBS were not held within 30 days and the latest one was held at 47 days.' For the fiscal year, the region issued 75 percent of the acknowledgment letters within 30 days and 97 percent within 45 days. For the five-month period since the audit, the
- region issued 104 acknowledgment letters, 88 percent within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 7
9 days. Additional improvements were made in October through December 1997. As of December 29,1997, the region had no ARBS or acknowledgment letters exceeding 30 days.
The region's average time to close technical allegations has improved during the last five years, decreasing from 5.6 months in FY93 to 4.7 months in FY97. This ccmpares favorably with the agency's goal of six months (Graph 13, Appendix 1).
However, these strengths were offset somewhat by the need for improvement in the timeliness of evaluation and closure of individual cases. The audit noted that 16 allegations that did not involve 01 or DOL had exceedec 180 days. In three cases it appeared that the staff evaluation experienced avoidable delays. This delayed action on the allegation beyond the date assigned by the ARB and it appeared the ARB was not aware of the delay. In each case, the reasons for the delay were not documented and the delay resulted in the allegation being open more than six months. Following the audit, the region expended considerable effort completing the evaluation of older allegations and issuing closure letters. As of December 29,1997, the region had only two allegations that did not involve Of or DOL that were more than 180 days old.
Region il The audit of Region ll's implementation of the allegation program occurred in April 1997 and included a review of 27 allegation files. Region 11 staff also responded well to almost all the allegations received. Allegations were processed and evaluated expeditiously. In general, allegations were thoroughly reviewed, with well-documented bases for closure. There were also significant improvements in the timeliness of issuing acknowledgment letters, conducting ARBS, and resolving and closing allegations. During FY97 Region 11 held 265 initial ARBS and issued 214 acknowledgment letters. Eleven ARBS were not held within 30 days and the latest one was held at 60 days. For the fiscal year, the region issued 85 percent of the acknowledgment letters within 30 days and 98 percent within 45 days. For the five-month period since the audit, the region issued 102 acknowledgment letters, 84 percent within 30 days and 97 percent within 45 days. Additional improvements were made in October through December. As of December 29,1997, the region had no ARBS or acknowledgment letters exceeding 30 days.
Historically, Region 11 has had the highest average time to close technical allegations. From FY93 to FY96 the region's average has ranged from a high of 8.2 months in FY93 to a low of 6.7 months in FY96. For FY97, the region's timeliness improved dramatically, dropping to 3.3 months, the lowest average in the agency (Graph 13). To a large extent, this improvement is due to the high level of attention the regional administrator places on the timeliness of
. responding to allegations. The regional administrator has weekly meetings with the staff to discuss any allegation that is open more than 120 days and the staff's efforts to complete the review of the allegation.
Region lil The audit of Region Ill's implementation of the allegation program occurred in March 1997 and -
included a review of 29 allegation files. In general, Region lil's performance in implementing the allegation program declined in FY97. While improvements were noted in the quality of 8
acknowledgment, status, and closure letters, the timeliness of initial and follow up ARBS, correspondence with allegers, and evaluation and closure of allegations declined. During the period of FY93 through FY96, the region's average time to close technical allegations has ranged from a low of 2.7 months in FY93 to a high of 4.1 months in FY95, with an FY96 average of 3.3 months. For FY97, this average rose to 3.9 months (Graph 13). Although Region til has consistently been below the agency's goal of six months for completing the review of technical allegations, the audit noted seven allegations that experienced avoidablo delays that resulted in the allegations remaining open more than six months..
During FY97 Region til held 253 initial ARBS and issued 143 acknowledgment letters. Fifty-seven ARBS were not held within 30 days, with the latest one held at 129 days. For the fiscal year, the region issued 54 percent of the acknowledgment letters within 30 days and 66 percent within 45 days. For the five-month period since the audit, the region issued 75 acknowledgment letters,65 percent within 30 days and 84 percent within 45 days. Additional improvements were made in October through December. As of December 29,1997, the region had no ARBS or acknowledgment letters due that exceeded 30 days.
Region IV The audit of Region IVs implementation of the allegation program occurred in March 1997 and included a review of 30 allegation files. Overall, the region is doing an excellent job of receiving, esaluating, assigning, referring, and investigating allegations. Allegations are being properly handled when received, most ARBS are held in a timely manner, the board's decisions reflected sound judgement and good safety perspective, and with one exception, allegation closeouts were timely and well based. Additionally, communications with allegers addressed their concems and were timely. The region's average time to close technical allegations has ranged from a low of 2.5 months in FY93 to a high of 4.6 months in FY95, with an FY97 average of 3.7 months (Graph 13). Region IVs performance in completing reviews of technical allegations has been significantly better than the agency goal of six months.
During FY97 Region IV held 308 initial ARBS and issued 155 acknowledgment letters. All of the ARBS were held within 30 days. For the fiscal year, the region issued 89 percent of the acknowledgment letters within 30 days and 99 percent within 45 days. For the five-month period since the audit, the region issued 83 scknowledgment letters,90 percent within 30 days and 100 percent within 45 days. As of December 29,1997, the region had no ARBS or acknowledgment letters due that exceeded 30 days.
NRR The audit of NRR's implementation of the allegation program occurred in April 1997 and included a review of 15 allegation files. Overall, NRR is doing an excellent job of receiving, assigning, and referring allegations. Allegations are being property handled when received, most ARBS are held in a timely manner, and most ARB decisions reflected sound judgement and good safety perspective. Additionally, communications with allegers addressed their concems. NRR's average time to close technical allegations has ranged from a low of 4.9 months in FY93 to a high of 11.5 months in FY95, with an FY97 average of 4.1 months (Graph 13).. Although NRR's performance in completing reviews of technical allegations exceeded the 9
agency goal of six months on average in FY94 through FY96, NRR tends to handle generic
. allegations that take longer to resolve. -
During FY97 NRR held 137 initial ARBS and issued 86 acknowledgment letters. Seventeen of the ARBS were not held within 30 days, the oldest one was held at 82 days. For the fiscal year, NRR issued 61 percent of the acknowledgment letters within 30 days and 92 percent within 45 days. For the five-month period since the audit, NRR issued 42 acknowledgment letters, 54 percent within 30 days and 90 percent within 45 days. The decline in timeliness may be due to the fact that the second coordinator was promoted to another position and a replacement had not been selected. As of December 29,1997, NRR had no ARBS or acknowledgment letters due that exceeded the 30-day goal.
NMSS The audit of NMSS' implementation of the allegation program occurred in April 1997 and included a review of six allegation files. Overall, NMSS is doing an outstanding job of implementing the allegation program. The documentation of concems received, minutes of the ARBS, correspondence to allegers, and bases for resolution of concems were all of high quality.
NMSS' average time to close technical allegations has ranged from a high of 5.7 months in FY93 to a low of 1.4 months in FY95, with an FY97 average of 5 months (Graph 13). At the time of the audd, only two of the 62 allegations NMSS had received in the previous 12 months were open more than 180 days, all initial ARBS had been held within 30 days, and only one acknowledgment letter exceeded the 30-day goal. Because NMSS recently switched to the new allegation database and data on all allegations had not been updated at the time of this report, more recent statistics were not available.
OSP The audit of OSP's implementation of the allegation program occurred in May 1997 and included a review of three allegation files. At that time, the NMSS allegation coordinator handled the administrative workload associated with allegations of wrongdoing by agreement state officials for OSP. The documentation of concems received, minutes of the ARBS, correspondence to allegers, and bases for resolution of concems were all of high quality. There were no findings that reflected adversely on OSP's implementation of the allegation program.
However, during the OSP audit there were two findings, one conceming the agency's implementation of the allegation program in handling allegations conceming agreement state performance issues and another conceming disclosing an alleger's identity to an agreement state prior to receiving the alleger's permission to do so. These findings were discussed with
.the responsible parties. Because OSP recently started to use the new allegation database, statistics were not available for the timeliness of ARBS and acknowledgment letters.
RESOURCES EXPENDED ON ALLEGATIONS Lesson (5) from the River Bend Review Team noted that resource experiditure on the handling of allegations by the headquarters and regional staff needs to be fully documented in the 10
agency's automated data processing systems and that the current level of resources being spent on handling allegations needs to be periodically evaluated. -
As part of this report, a review of the resousces expended on handling allegations was performed Graph 2 in Appendix 1 shows the hours expended by the technical staff in handling allegations from FY93 through FY97, including a breakdown for allegations against the reactor and materials licensees. The graph shows a significant increase in the hours expended on technical allegations from FY93 to FY97, rising from 30,897 hours0.0104 days <br />0.249 hours <br />0.00148 weeks <br />3.413085e-4 months <br /> to 67,668 hours0.00773 days <br />0.186 hours <br />0.0011 weeks <br />2.54174e-4 months <br /> or 51 FTE.
As noted in the graph, the increase is almost entirely due to an increase in hours expended on allegations concerning reactors, rising from 48,796 hours0.00921 days <br />0.221 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.02878e-4 months <br /> in FY96 to 58,996 hours0.0115 days <br />0.277 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.78978e-4 months <br /> in FY97.
This equates to 45 FTE. Subtracting two FTE for the Agency Allegation Advisor and his assistant, which are overhead positions, the 43 remaining FTE exceeds the 40 FTE NRR budgeted for allegation follow up in FY97. NRR is currently considering increasing the FY98 resources budgeted for allegation follow up.
The 8,682 hours0.00789 days <br />0.189 hours <br />0.00113 weeks <br />2.59501e-4 months <br /> expended in FY97 resolving allegations conceming materials licensees equates to 6.4 FTE, using NMSS' conversion rate of 1350 hours0.0156 days <br />0.375 hours <br />0.00223 weeks <br />5.13675e-4 months <br /> /FTE. This is more than twice the amount NMSS budgeted for allegation follow up in FY97. NMSS budgeted 2.7 FTE for allegation follow up for materials licensees in each of the last five years. For FY98, NMSS increased the budgeted resources to 3 FTE. This does not appear to accurately reflect the resources currently being expended in this area.
While the number of allegations received during the period FY93 through FY97 fluctuated, the number of hours expended per allegation rose from a low of 28 hours3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br /> in FY93 to a high of 52 hours6.018519e-4 days <br />0.0144 hours <br />8.597884e-5 weeks <br />1.9786e-5 months <br /> in FY97. Graph 3 shows the hours per allegation expended by technical staff members.
This rise is attributable to more accurate reporting of hours expended on allegations and the additional time spent by the staff implementing the improvements to the allegation program, e.g., increased tracking of allegations, increased written communications with allegers.
Graph 14 provides a comparison of hours per allegation as reported by organization. Based on the information in the graph, it appears that there has been an increase in hours reported per allegation in all organizations except Region ll. The decrease in Region ll is likely due to the significant effort the region expended in FY96 to improve timeliness and reduce the backlog of older cases, rather than a lack of attention to accurately reporting hours expended on allegations. It is also noted Region IV has historically reported significantly fewer hours per allegation than the other regions and this trend continued in FY97. It appears Region IV may need to pay additional attention to the number of hours reported as expended on allegations.
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE ALLEGATION PROGRAM Recommendations of Review Team for Reassessment of the NRC's Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation On January 7,1994, the review team issued its report, NUREG 1499, " Report of the Review Team for Reassessment of the NRC's Program for Protecting Allegers Against Retaliation."
11
The review team made 47 specific recommendations addressing how the agency could improve its program for protecting allegers against retaliation. With the issuance of the brochure
- describing NRC's allegation process, implementation of the new allegation tracking software, and a revision to Management Directive 8.8," Management of Allegations," the staff has ,
completed action on 45 of the 47 recommendations. Appendix 2 is a complete list of the recommendations and the status.
The two recommendations awaiting completion are; ll.C-2, support legislative changes to i
Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and ll.B-3, develop a survey instrument
, to independently and credibly assess a licensee's environment for raising concems.
l (1) Recommendation ll.C-2 stated that the Commission "should support legislation to amend Section 211." The Commission has done this through drafting the proposed legislative changes and repeated contacts with DOL encouraging it to complete its review. The staff met with DOL in March and September 1997 to discuss the proposed changes. On December 22,1997, DOL provided comments on the proposed changes.
Following review of the comments, the staff will meet with DOL to finalize the proposed changes. Thereforo, this recommendation will remain open until the legislative changes have been submitted to Congress.
(2) The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) is evaluating existing methodologies for conducting surveys. Following its review, RES will make a recommendation to the EDO.
General Accounting Office Recommendations The General Accounting Office (GAO), in its report " NUCLEAR EMPLOYEE SAFETY CONCERNS - Allegation System Offers Better Protection, but important issues Remain," made specific recommendations for improving the timeliness of the Department of Labor's allegations processing, the NRC's ability to monitor the allegation process, and the NRC's knowledge of the work environment at nuclear power plants. Appendix 3 is a complete list of the recommendations and the status.
On December 22,1997, the NRC received comments from DOL on legislative changes proposed by the NRC staff to improve the timeliness of the DOL process. Following review of the comments, the staff will meet with DOL to finalize the legislative proposal. With regard to the recommendations conceming NRC's ri,lity to monitor the allegation process and track and trend allegations, we believe the Allegatior, Management System currently performs the functions recommended by GAO and consider action on this recommendation complete.
However, the information systems used by the Offices of Enforcement and Investigations are
. being updated to improve the efficiency of sharing data.
As to the recoramendations to routinely provide feedback forms in allegation closeout correspondence and using a survey or other systematic method of obtaining information from industry employees, the staff is still evaluating these recommendations. Feedback forms were mailed to another random sample of 150 allegers during December 1997. After analyzing the 12
responses and evaluating the resource implications, the NRC will decide whether to routinely include the form in all future closure correspondence. Additionally, the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research is currently preparing a paper for the EDO describing several options for reviewing methodologies for assessing work environments.
TRENDS IN ALLEGATIONS Review Team Recommendation ll.B-14 stated that the NRC should monitor both technical and discrimination allegations to discem trends or sudden increases that might justify the NRC questioning the licensee as to the root causes of such changes or trends. With the increased emphasis on establishing and maintaining a safety-conscious work environment, the staff modified the analysis performed last year to focus on those allegations that had the potential to provide insights into the environment. To achieve this goal, the staff selected only those allegations that originated from either licensee or contractor employees or former employees or anonymous sources.- Additionally, the staff is currently performing the analysis twice a year and providing input to the screening meetings that are part of the Senior Management Meeting
~ (SMM) assessment process. Any insights gained from the analysis of allegations are discussed at the screening meetings and the SMM.
In preparing this report, a five-year history of allegations was reviewed for reactor and material licensees and vendors. Graphs 1,4, 5, and 15 in Appendix 1 show the five-year trends for all allegations, allegations conceming reactor licensees, allegations conceming materials licensees, and allegations of discrimination, respectively. As the graphs indicate, total allegations increased 4 percent, allegations conceming reactor licensees increased 11 percent, allegations concoming material licensees declined 20 percent, and discrimination allegations declined 7 percent.
For reactor licensees, statistics on allegations received from October 1992 through September 1997 are provided in tables in Appendix 4. The tables include allegations received, discrimination allegations received, allegations substantiated, and allegations open as of October 1,1997. The section on trends at operating reactor sites below discusses the nine licensees that met the criteria for a more in-depth review.
Because of the large number of materials licensees and the small number of allegations at most of those licensees, the tables in Appendix 5 list the !i ensees for which the NRC received two or more allegations in FY97 or at least one allegation oi discrimination. None of the licensees received a sufficient number of allegations in FY97 to discem an adverse trend or pattem. Nor did the statistics indicate that a more in-depth review was warranted.
Allegation Trends at Reactor Licensees The NRC receiw f W more -> actor allegations in FY97 than it received in FY96. Anecdotal information gathered by the allegation coordinators during conversations with allegers indicates
. downsizing and cost control in the industry continue to contribute to the increase. In bringing concems to the NRC, allegers have mentioned these issues in addition to their specific concems. -
13
O The staff applied the following criteria in determining which reactor sites should receive a more in-depth review:-
- 1) The number of allegations received exceeds one and a half times the median value for the industry but does not exceed twice the median, and there is a 50 percent increase in the number of allegations received over the previous year,
- 2) The number of allegations received exceeds the median value but does not exceed three times the median, and there is a 25 percent increase in the number of allegations received over the previous year, and
- 3) The number of allegations received exceeds three times the median value.
The nine reactor sites that met one of these criteria are Millstone (63), St. Lucie (61), Zion (37),
San Onofre (32), Clinton-(23), Brunswick (19), Indian Point 3 (16), Hatch (15), and Dresden (13). Millstone, St. Lucie, Zion, San Onofre, and Clinton each exceeded three times the industry median of seven allegations. Brunswick, Indian Point 3, and Hatch exceed twice the median and experienced more than a 25 percent increase in the number of allegations concoming the site. Dresden exceeded one and a half times the median and experienced more than a 50 percerat increase in the number of allegations conceming the site. A more detailed discussion of each of these sites follows. Appendix 6 contains the two-year trend plots of allegations received for these selected sites.
Millstone
. During the 5-year period analyzed, FY93 through FY97, the number of allegations received from on-site sources increased every year, from 29 in FY93 to 63 in FY97. The number of allegations of discrimination has also risen from eight in FY92 to 23 in FY96, leveling off in FY97 at 23. This is in spite of the licensee's recent efforts to improve its corrective action and employee concems program and improve relationships between management and employees.
The licensee, Northeast Utilities, has made some major management changes in the last year, from the top of the organization through first level supervisors. While the new management has initiated a more proactive approach to establishing an environment conducive to raising issues within its organization, information received by the allegation staff and the resident inspectors indicates that some of the licensee's staff is still skeptical. The new management has taken some personnel actions that some employees viewed as retribution for raising concems and this has increased the skepticism. The skepticism continues though management later admitted they had made a mistake in one instance and rehired the employees that had been terminated.
The licensee has conducted extensive training of employees and managers on how to raise concems and how to handle concems once raised. The licensee has also conducted a number of employee surveys to determine whether the efforts to improve the environment have been effective. As of the end of November 1997, these efforts have not resulted in a decrease in the number of allegations received by the NRC from on-site sources.
14
s The NRC has a team assessing the licensee's efforts to improve the environment at Millstone.
The team is reviewing the employee concems program, the training given to managers and employees, and the oversight provided by the third-party independent oversight contractor. The team is currently scheduled to complete their assessment in January 1998. Given this ongoing assessment, the attention the NRC and the licensee are already placing on the environment at Millstone, the public Commission briefings that have been held, and the fact that achieving an environment conducive to raising safety concems is a restart item, further discussion of Millstone in this report is not considered necessary.
St. Lucie During the 5-year period analyzed, FY93 through FY97, the number of allegations received from on-site sources has increased every year, from two in FY93 to 61 in FY97. A review of the two-year trend of allegations received per month indicates a drop in the number of allegations received by the NRC during September, October, and November 1997. The number of allegations of discrimination rose from one in FY94 to four in FY96, and subsequently dropped to zero in FY97. As of the end of December, there are no open discrimination allegations pertaining to St. Lucie.
Following the FY96 annual report, a discussion of the number of allegations received by the NRC and the licensee's efforts to improve the environment for raising concems was added to the February 1997 bimonthly meeting between Region 11 and the licensee. The licensee discussed a number of efforts that were to improve its corrective action and employee concems l program. The efforts were developed to improve the timeliness of corrective actions and to )
ensure that employees were informed of how their concems were addressed. The NRC also conducted an inspection of the licensee's employee concems program in June 1997. The i inspection found that the program was effectively investigating employees' concems and safety issues were being addressed. However, the inspection did identify a weakness in that the program did not verify that corTective actions for substantiated concems were appropriately completed.
At the September 23,1997 meeting, the licensee discussed the employee concems program, efforts to improve the environment for raising concems, and the indicators it is using to assos improvements in the environment. Efforts to improve the environment included:
Increased management focus on the Condition Report System including improved evaluation and closeout, Strengthening of the employee concems process to include more timely investigations, tracking corrective actions, and improved communications with concemed employees (i.e., feedback on closure and effectiveness of corrective actions),
Safety concem and safety-conscious work environment training for all supervisors, and 15
9 a
- Meetings quarterly with the entire staff to emphasize management expectations with regard to a safety-conscious work environment.
In addition to these efforts, the licensee also informed the staff that it had recently concluded union contract negotiations and it anticipated greater organization stability for the near future.
With the improvements in the corrective action and employee concems programs and the complebon of contract negotiations, the licensee believes that more concems will be raised and resolved intemally and fewer concems would come to the NRC.
As stated above, early indications from September through November tend to support the
!!censee's opinion. Although it is too early to pronounce this effort a success, the willingness of Region ll to engage the licensee in a discussion of allegation trends and possible implications for the safety-conscious work environment appears to have had a positive effect. The trends are moving in the right direction. The staff will continue to monitor allegation trends for St.
Lurje.
Zion During the 5-year period analyzed, FY93 through FY97, the number of allegations received from on-site sources at Zion fluctuated around the industry median from FY93 through FY96.
However, in FY97 the number rose to 37 from six in FY96. A review of the two-year trend of allegations received per month indicates a significant increase in the allegations received by the NRC starting in February 1997 and continuing at that level through October 1997 The number of allegations of discrimination rose from none in FY96 to seven in FY97, and three more were received in October 1997. One of the 10 discrimination allegations was closed with a finding of no discrimination. The other nine allegations were open as of the end of December.
As noted above, the NRC has historically received relatively few allegations from Zion.
However, the number of allegations received rose significantly following the licensee's reassessment of the operations department in early 1997. Subsequently, the operators at Zion requested a meeting with the Regional Administrator in Region ill to discuss what they perceived to be a chilled environment, i.e., management's unwillingness to acknowledge problems and correct them. Following that meeting, Region 111 met with Commonwealth Edison management to discuss the allegations that a chilling effect exists, and the licensee's plan to correct that perception. During the meeting the licensee acknowledged the perception, discussed the management changes that had occurred, and discussed additional actions it was taking to improve the environment for raising concems. At the close of the meeting, the licensee was informed by the Regional Administrator that ensuring that an environment conducive to raising concems was in place is a restart item for Zion.
Given the attention the agency has focussed on Zion, the licensee's acknowledgment that there is a perception of a chilling effect at Zion, and the fact that establishing an environment conducive to raising safety concems is a restart item, further analysis is not considered warranted. The staff will continue to monitor the allegation trends at Zion.
16
6 r
.. 3-s San Onofre During the 5-year period analyzed, FY93 through FY97, the number of allegations received
. from on-site sources increased from eight in FY93 to 27 in FY95, decreased to 16 in FY96, and increased to 32 in FY97. A review of the two-year trend of allegations received per month indicates a general declining trend since the peak in December 1996. The number of allegations of discrimination remained fairiy level from FY 93 through FY96 at four, with a drop to three in FY95. The number of discrimination allegations rose to eight in FY97. Although no discrimination allegations have been substantiated in the last three years, two of the allegations were open at the end of December.
After the Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) published statistics on allegabons at selected facilities in April 1996, the licensee sent a letter to the NRC outlining its approach to maintaining a safety-conscious work environment. The efforts included issuing policy statements, training managers and employees on employee rights and how to effectively raise concems, and conducting a survey of the work environment.
' The staff met with the licensee in August 1997 and again in November 1997 to discuss its
__ efforts to monitor and maintain a safety conscious work environment. The licensee presented the results of the survey of the work environment that was conducted in late 1996.
Approximately 43 percent of employees responded to the survey. On a scale of one to five, five
- being the best score, San Onofre was rated between 3.5 and 3.7 in the areas of Nuclear Safety Culture, Willingness to Pursue Concems, and Confidence in the Employee Concems Program.
The licensee initiated a number of actions in response to the survey. These included,
- Recognition of those who raise issues (public and/or financial),
- Peer recognition through publishing " Good Catch" articles in the company newspaper,
- Self assessments, and
- Work Group Actions (including intervention and training).
Additionally, the licensee has a fairly robust employee concems program that has a staff of th.
In addition to resolving individual concems, the licensee's staff monitors concems for trends, including by subject, workgroup, and type, if a particular organization exhibits an adverse trend, the licensee's staff will talk to managers and employees to try to understand why the trend developed. If they believe it is appropriate, they will rer.ommend actions to address the underlying issue. The licensee also compares trends in concens with trends in NRC allegations. A comparison of concems involving nuclear safety issues received by the licensee and allegations received by the NRC shows that the licensee's program generally receives one to one and a half times the number of allegations received by the NRC and that the trend pattems are similar.
The licensee intends to survey employees on the work environment again in July 1998. This
' will provide insights into whether the employees believe the environment is improving. Until :
then, the NRC staff will continue to monitor allegation trends at San Onofre.
17 i
i
6 a
1 Clinton During the 5-year period analyzed, FY93 through FY97, the number of allegations received from on site sources increased from nine in FY96 to 23 in FY97. A review of the two-year trend of allegations received per month indicates that the peak occurred in September 1996, following the reactor recirculation pump sealleak event. Since then, there has been a slightly declining trend in the number of allegstions received. The number of allegations of discrimination remained fairly level from FY94 through FY96 at one, and rose to six in FY97. Although no discrimination allegations have been substantiated in the last three years, four discrimination allegations were open at the end of December.
A review of the allegations the NRC received conceming Clinton indicates the issues cover a broad spectrum. However, the category for which the NRC received the largest number of issues was the health physics / radiation protection area. As a result of inspections in this area in November and December 1996 and January 1997, a number of violations were identified that were considered as part of a Severity Level lli violation and a $100,000 civil penalty issued in March 1997.
The staff does not intend to take any additional action at +his time other than to continue monitoring the general allegation trend and the outcome on the discrimination allegations.
Brunswick During the 5-year period analyzed, FY93 through FY97, the number of allegations received
' from on-site sources decreased from 22 in FY93 to four in FY96. The number of allegations then rose to 19 in FY97. A review of the two-year trend of allegations received per month indicates a slightly declining trend since the number peaked in May 1997. The number of allegations of discrimination remained fairiy level for FY95 and FY96 at two, and rose to five in FY97. Although no discrimination allegations have been substantiated in the last three years, seven discrimination allegations were open at the end of December, in three of those seven, either the DOL Area Director or Ol found no discrimination. However, the allegations are being held open pending completion of the DOL process. No findings have been made conceming the other four discrimination allegations.
The recent allegation history (FY97) at Brunswick is somewhat unique in that 53 percent of the allegations are in one area, environmental qualification. The staff issued a $150,000 civil penalty to Brunswick in November 1996 for programmatic environmental qualification issues.
The licensee has a large corrective action program under way in this area and the staff is monitoring the results closely.
The staff will continue to monitor the allegation trends, especially the results of the DOL and 01 findings on the discrimination allegations. t Indian Point 3 .
During the 5-year period analyzed, FY93 through FY97, the number of allegations received from on-site sources increased from nine in FY93 to 20 in FY94 and then decreased to a low of l l
18
s s
four in FY96. The number of allegations then rose to 16 in FY97. A review of the two-year trend of allegations received per month indicates that the number of allegations peaked in May 1997 and has declined significantly since then. This peak coincides with the last outage at the site when there were an additional 1700 contractors on the site. The number of allegations of discrimination remained fairly level for FY94 and FY95 at five, dropped to one in FY96, and then rose to two in FY97. Although no discrimination allegations have been substantiated in the last three years, two discrimination allegations were open at the end of December. In one of the cases, the DOL Area Director found no discrimination. However, the allegation is being held open pending completion of the DOL process.
With the decline in allegations following the end of the outage, the staff determined that additional analysis was unnecessary. The staff does not intend to take any action at this time other than to continue monitoring the status of the discrimination allegations and the general allegation trend.
Hatch During the 5-year period analyzed, FY93 through FY97, the number of allegations received from on-site sources fluctuated around the median from FY93 through FY96. The number of allegations then rose to 15 in FY97. A review of the two-year trend of allegations received per month indicates that the number of allegations peaked in March and April 1997 and has declined since then. This peak coincides with the spring outage at the site when there were additional contractors on the site. Hatch has had only one allegation of discrimination during the period. It was submitted in FY93.
With the decline in allegations following the end of the outage, additional analysis was determined to be unnecessary. The staff does not intend to take any action at this time other than to continue monitoring the general allegation trend.
Dresden During the 5-year period analyzed, FY93 through FY97, the number of allegations received from on-site sources fluctuated. In FY93 the NRC received 11 allegations conceming Dresden.
The number of allegations dropped in FY94 to eight, rose to 14 in FY95, dropped again in FY96 to four and then rose to 13 in FY97. A review of the two-year trend of allegations received per month indicates that the number of allegations peaked in April 1997 and has declined since then. The peak coincides with the spring outage at the site.
The number of discrimination allegations has remained fairly low at Dresden. The NRC received three discrimination allegations in FY93, none in FY94, one in FY95, two in FY96, and one in FY97. Although there have been no findings of discrimination in the last three years, one i discrimination allegation was open at the end of December.
With the decline in allegations following the end of the outage, additional analysis was determined to be unnecessary. The staff does not intend to take any action at this time other j than to continue monitoring the outcome on the discrimination allegation and the general allegation trend. ;
19
z Allegabon Trends at Material Licensees Because none of the licensees received a sufficient number of allegations from on-site sources in FY97 to discem a trend or pattem, or provide insights into the work environment, more in-depth reviews were not performed.
Allegation Trends at Vendors Because none of the vendors or contractors received a sufficient number of allegations from on-site sources in FY97 to discem a trend or pattem, or provide insights into the work environment, more in-depth reviews were not performed.
CONCLUSIONS Overall, the implementation of the allegation program has improved in the last year. The findings from the 1997 audits and NRC's performance measures for the allegation program
' indicate improvements have occurred in receiving, documenting, tracking, and completing evaluations of allegations. The timeliness and quality of communications with allegers have also improved. While there has been a generalimprovement in the handling of allegations, the audits continue to identify isolated examples of untimely resolution of allegations and communications with allegers. However, the number of occurrences declined throughout the fiscal year. -
The recording of time spent on managing the allegation process and follow up activities also improved in the last year. During the audits, the team reviewed the number of hours reported for followup activities for a selected sample of allegations. The hours reported appeared to match the level of effort evident in the inspection reports. This improvement is reflected in the significant incease in the number of hours reported related to allegation follow up. A contributor to the increase in resources expended was the incease in the number of allegations received by the NRC. Total allegations increased 4 percent, allegations conceming reactor licensees increased 11 percent, allegations conceming material licensees declined 20 percent, and discrimination allegations declined 7 percent. However, as noted on Page 10, the budget process has not reflected the increase in the hours expended. This was pointed out to NRR and NMSS and both offices are reviewing the resources allocated for allegation follow up.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- 1. Increasingly, the staff is receiving allegations via the Intemet. Because the allegation program does not currently have a web page, allegers have been sending E-mail
. containing allegations to the Public Affairs and Enforcement web pages. - While the staff prefers that allegers submit allegations either through the mail or over the phone because of concems with protecting the identity of the alleger, the staff has responded to several allegations over the Intemet after explaining the risks to the alleger.
20
5 e
s Because individuals are submitting allegations over the Intemet, it is recommended that an allegations' web page be established. The page would include-instructions on how to contact the NRC, a copy of the brochure describing the allegation process, a copy of Form 3, and cautions conceming the risks associated with communicating safety and regulatory concems over the Internet.
- 2. As licensees have become aware that the NRC is reviewing allegation statistics for insights into the safety-conscious work environment at licensee facilities, they have requested information on these statistics with an increasing frequency. In the last twelve months, the Agency Allegation Advisor has received and responded to 20 requests for allegation statistics. Each request entails developing the statistics and drafting a cover letter to forward them. The statistics are also placed in the public document room.
To reduce the burden on the staff and improve the availability of the statistics, it is recommended that the statistics be placed on the NRC web site and updated quarterly.
This recommendation has been discussed in several public forums and received mixed responses from licensees. Licensees that are already requesting the information are generally in favor of placing the statistics on the web site. Other licensees are concemed that the raw data may be misinterpreted if it is widely available to the public.
However, given that the data will be compiled and released at least twice a year in I conjunction with the SMM assessment process, the resource savings to the staff appear to warrant implementing the recommendation.
- 3. During the ANS Workshop held in Region 11 in December 1997, two recommendations were made on improving communications between licensees and the NRC conceming allegations.
- a. The first recommendation was that licensees be informed when the NRC becomes concemed about a particular area because of the number of allegations received. The rationale is that they cannot fix what they do not know about.
While the NRC staff reviews statistics on allegations within a particular area as part of picking inspection areas, this information has rarely been provided to licensees. The concem has been that release of the information may result in
" finger printing" an alleger and cause he or she to be the subject of discrimination. However, if the NRC has a concem, the party best able to address the concem is the licensee. It is recommended that the staff review this issue to determine if there are circumstances in which information of this type could be provided to licensees without finger printing allegers.
- b. The second recommendation was that NRC inform " senior licensee management' when an allegation triggers an inspection. The concem with this recommendation is the same as the one above, the potential of " finger printing"-
an alleger and subsequent discrimination. However, if we had an alleger's 21
s 1
permission to so inform senior licensee management and doing so would not jeopardize an Of investigation, it may result in more timelyarrective action.
Consequently, it is recommended that the staff ask allegers whether they object to NRC informing senior licensee management that the inspection looking into their concems was in response to the allegation. If this recommendation is approved, the Agency Allegation Advisor will develop implementing guidance.
In a Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated June 2,1994, responding to SECY 94-089, the Commission stated that the staff should explore ways of providing sufficient data to individual licensees to assist them in evaluating their programs to the extent it can be done without compromising alleger's identities. I believe Recommendations 2 and 3.a can be implemented in ways that accomplish both goals.
(
22
W h
k APPENDIX 1 GRAPHS OF GENERAL ALLEGATION TRENDS i
23
\
O k
M T'"
kO ~
.C CL o E ESI O W
SgEo E sub.5 I j :
. I y >
's i 5 f #
' i= \ I t !
'. ! \ !
W 'l \ l Z Y t f O
i i
I I
8 l-- .T.', I i
( ' \,
I !
0 '. \'s
. \ \
i a uJ O \ 's
's I
I h
w 5 d .
i s
I
\
m >
e a E l i* < ma ie /
- e O I l !!!
J i! # ' W J i! ! E N i,!
/
/ I, O
.b: I i g 8* ! . l
{ W m ll l l $
$ !! l l 0
5 !! I l !^
o !i I
I E
.! !: 1 ,
g I h* l q Q
I
$ $ $ l
- b a
2 S h R LA ,
p OI a r
N
. - . 7 O
. , 9
- , 9
. 1 I .
T s., ,
A G
E L .
. 6 9
L .
., ., 9 A , 1 N
O R
s., A D
E
- 5 Y E
9 9 L
" A D
- 1 C
.. S N .
I F
E
- f
, f a
P
- t S
X
- l
. a c
E )
s
. 4 9
9 i
h n
d _
c S
1 n -
e
' a T R s u
o [ B y
U h T
[
d e
O (
S
- d n
e H R - .
- p U . .
3 9 x O .
., 9 E H .
. , 1 s r
u 0
7 0
6 0
5 0
4 0
3 0 0 0 o 2 1 H lllfI
S 3 R L A . h OI p T R a -
O I
- 7 T *
. 9 9
1 A
G E s.,
L .
L .
A 6
9 9 _
1 R ,
E P
" ~
R D
- A E
E - -
5 9 L Y
D
., 9 A 1
C N
S s., I F
E
- f
., f
- s. a P ,
/. S t
X
. l
. '- a E .
/' 4 i
n c
9 h c
9 1
T e
R .
- B y
U .
d e
O
, d
~
n H
~- e S *- p R -. x U .
. 3 E O .
- 9 s H .
' " 9 r 1
u 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 6 5 4 3 2 1 H
[
Y O .C W
g
~
0.
' O h 0
! No
.W=u<
89E.Ea mo z e ..
I!l
@ kI k l 5 2 Sk i !
O
'i
'1 i
\
\
h k \ l 4 \i \ l 8
Q \l;..\
i l
j W !
J t a l l J .',
. I i m
~
k *
's I
i
\
i E il
' i 8du 1, I t O il I! I
/ i i
59 h '
o !: i \
W !i li '
< i I a i
E = l
!l 3
i i
l i
! l I i l 5 I i l i I 3 l i 1 a : J
' : i ij g R
I I I 5 E
o E l!! - .c n.
6 8 o z e ES m ze 5 o ma_
m & D as moomz i l
. I I
'!iI
& l l ' 5 Z l' l l lj O
=
U l*
i I i :
ll I I Al== !?
O LLI f',
i ',
I I
lf j l
8
\
.J '
i\ ' !
.J \ '. I a
( i i
\,
I WJ \
's I
iI E
\ / /I b]
4
. \.: ,l l \-
E W \! t id ).' / \
l== l\ '
\
.4 iI t I I
E m .i\
g
\
1
\
i i
,i i i*
1
. : 1 l '
5 l \
M t \
a
, : i
. : ) i !
- if ! i i i g 1
I I S a 0 -
S 8 E * !
. l i
l
~
g 6 l i n t h
p ao a cd r i
ng G h n c or e
Tw-S -
N -
O I
7 9
T A -
~
G E d L e L s 6 Al Co 9
E r a
S e OY R A
Lin E Y
Cd e _ -
5 L 9 A t C Onu
. S
. I
. F To .
E C ~
~
~
M I
~
T .
4 9
N A
E M s m
o m .
3 9
0 2
5 1
a j 0
9 h
M E ak O
$o e A C o 2E W
2: Wo Wmzm$z^ aw UO Wa o a.
EU WO
!!Ii l ~! ll Z '! -
. i \ ;
\\
O
=
l' .
l \.
j l
> l I \
\
( '
l \.., '
/
.? s h
3 W , / \
\
J ',l
,, \ m a I d A \ !. g @ l 4 /\ \ / 5 8 l ', ~ \
i i
u
.6
=w e a
i Z ! /
l E W O
- i l
f l
/
l E )
0 l l l ! \
8 ul !/ / l
-g i. .;! I I '
l
!o
~.;
I l 8 u.
s.
l A l . l @
/ Z W e
. O d I p R !
> il n
= n
=
H R R R s s
a a,
W h . .Ell Q Q.
8 E l C 1I kJ O
$U
' !8 l e !l l W ; .
- \
Ily g; Z '
i'. /
O '
i ^
- .- : /\
>= ! : .I \
f '
l l \
Q '
's, (, / g gj .
's, \/
J '.. 's X a
', ,' \
J z g
<. . s, , s -
- . s O s / \\ w amme .
. 's / Q
- ' /',
- I
is gi 3
- u o Z it i !G
' iE O ! \g 8
/; z
,/l** i-M W
'l* k MJ / E (I"
I l 's Il
! i '\
/
a l O
e I .it l 8 a : \ l e If \ [ A Y \ ,l
/. z
\ l o
- f *i . p l .I
\
l r
n a 4 g
I I E -
8 -
5
S 9 DY EA T ' h A D p n I 0 T
8 a r
gD N1 yE g
A T> G ESNSN COEBE ELPUP RCOSO l
S '
. - _ - 7 N
. p .
9 a,
O
. /
9 .
I *
- . /
T
. s .
A G ,A .
y y ._,. 6 E *~
- ~
,~ .
9 L
,. . L L .
_ O D
A .
R A
E
/
l O
E l
i
. . _- . - Y D
. -- U l .
5 L L
~
, - 9 A C N "
s
~
~.._
C S
N I
T _
O ~.._
I
.s F
. O
,v' ~ _. N 7,
S G ,% '..
E O
E ,~
~
,, D S
R
"* , 4 Y 9
A
~
" D
. ' 0
".". 8 S
N . .
1
~
O I
~
T ~ .
. S A
~
G - ...
. N E . ..
O I
L L . , - . T A
. 3 A 9 G 0 0 0 E
0 O L 0
3 5
2 0
2 M 5 L 1
A
o G
S 0 D
EAY 1 T
A D h
p I 0 D T 8 N1 a r
ED A Vr E tSNSN T> G COEBE LPUP
%COSO
--~
-~
y 7
. 9 S .. .
~...
N ...
- ~
~
O
~
~ ..
l .
T
~
~
A - .
6
. . 9 G -
E
. . - L
, - O L . .
R D
/
L -
A l
O A ,".
5 E
Y L
E D
U y
g
~.
~...
9 A C
S L
C N
I I F
n T
. O o N
.~
.~
.- S
. E g .. -. O a
D e,,
-. S 4 Y E
- % . 9 A
,s D R % ,' .
0
, N .
. 8 s % - 1
. s o
, ,s s -
S
- N
=e .*'
.~
.* ,s
, - O I
T u
a e' i
- A 3
9 G E
0 0 0 0 0 0 L
= 3 0 5 2
5 1 1 0 5 L A
, ! ,l1I /. ,II/ 1l ,! I lf lI ;I ) jl l ! 1li
e -
P
~
g i e
lIIi
^
o e : 1 I iii l
l \
\
j II; ll
\
\ l g
ll .\ t W '
- ! t I I
Z l \
O 0...
t
, l ,
W ..
. ~. -
u i
a o
u ~ t 0 .
~
l l e \
W '..
l 53a I J .
. -l'.
l pf 3
l J '.,
s 't / {: SiO o
- Z
% ~~.I e
i
/
s m -
[ ., t
,j/
g -
! t.
\ g o
Z f
/
/e..
e.
s I
O s l ) \ S
\\ ,l ! \ o i \ g E V ! \ ^
- s !
\ tt) l\ g i \
s-z o
- , t :
, : \ G
< ! i ! i g a w
S
- S S
S S S S 2 d,
O
- 1 N
v-S E
E C3 g -
^
2 D z 0 o y l Eo5
- 5 s l t
!!ll
. . ~
l l \
l l -
\ !
l l \ !
U) ! ! \
/
Z !/ \
/
O l -l
\
(
l b '
. g i 4 ', '..
~
t \
', '.. \ \ '
Q .
' i =8 uJ '.. t 5
- J '.
~
\ \\ F a
,,J , .
\
$ i :
! \
\
/
Ybz o
m -
g 2 m W
's i \ l L O i =
U) '.. : r m
[' k Z l\
\
I '
l E
w I a
,~'s I i $
- 's I l e
'\
I
^
i I
E 1
o a
s, i i <
- . I i n C m uJ S S g a = = d
O e
m w
EEI ~
. 555 .
35 555 y g EE EEE z !!!!l O
, .- ~
W ! ./y\
( ./ i G l /
/ /
I',
l ',
W /./ n m.J 4/ i,
,,J ./ 1 '- !
4a -
'l/. l .i,
W8 _-
l l' l ,\ \
u) a- ..-
/ ! '
Oo ...-
l l l \ 5 J5 :
( l l OOZ '
! i i / ,@d
\ x O t
.. \ t. o p '.. .
. \ ', \l
\ ; o W ' s. ,.tI g k. ,/
a
.}
\ ,y w i E m lI O namen /-
& .i .\ \ d Z ! \ u, l \ *
& I I!
w R // h.li
- E 5 E 1 n
- i\ .
, W E
3 N o e e T N O O
4 1
I l l
V .
I I l I h
NNNN p S OOOO I I I I a S GGGG r MmRRRR N
EEEE G Y .
- 7 9
B
- M 9 1
g.
N .
~y .,
O
. ",.~ ,-
'w. -
I TN
. ~ *.,,
~. ~
6 9
_~.~~ . _
9 1
GIT
"~. ~
~~
~'
_~~. ,
LZ ~-
LI '
w
~.
_._ R A
AN -
~ ~. ~.~
~~ ~ -
5 9 L E
Y RA
~
9 A 1
~. ., C EG S
,~ ~ .
I F
PR S O R
. - ,,, 4 9
U 9
. 1 O '.'. ' . ,
H S .
R U ' - .
. 3 9
O . -
- w. 9 H .
l a 1 g 0 4
0 2
0 0
0 8 6 0 0 4
0 2
0 g 1 1 1
], . i lI:
T 5 1
D N '
h E E T p D AM a r
& ES S CO EL V FE O RCIN N T -
E N -
E ,
7 9
M 2
S -
S ,
AN -
RO '
~
_ 6 9
AIT HA
~ -
FD -
. R A
- E OIM
' - Y L
'. - 5 A SIT .
- 9 C S
. - I N N
. . F OI I
S E
T
- D U
A
- - - L
- . C
, 4 N S G ,
~
z 9 I YN E ~
~ /
/
- DG L '-, - /
EI T TS A .~
~ '
/
AE GV I
TN
- 3 9 SI E L V L
- m 0
5 1
0 0
1 0
5 O
NU I F
1 APPENDIX 2 REVIEW TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS 39
e STATUS OF REVIEW TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS .
II.A-1. The Commission should issue a policy statement emphasizing the importance of licensees and their contractors achieving and maintaining a work environment conducive to prompt, effective problem identification and resolution, in which their employees are and feel free to raise concems, both to their management and to the NRC, without fear of retaliation.
The final policy statement was published in the Federal Register on May 1,1996.
Action on this item has been completed.
II.A-2 The Commission policy statement proposed in Recommendation ll.A-1 should include the following:
(1) Licensees should have a means to raise issues intemally outside the normal processes, and (2) Employees (including contractor employees) should be informed of how to raise concems through normal processes, attemative intemal processes, and directly to the NRC.
The final policy statement was published in the Federa/ Register on May 1,1996.
Action on this item has been completed, ll.A-3 The regulations in Part 19 should be reviewed for clarity to ensure consistency with the Commission's employee's protection regulations.
A direct final rule revising Part 19 was issued in February 1996. Action on this item has been completed.
II.A-4 The policy statement proposed in Recommendation ll.A-1 should emphasize that licensees (1) are responsible for having their contractors maintain an environment in which contractor employees are free to raise concems without fear of retaliation; and (2) should incorporate this responsibility into applicable contract language.
The final policy statement was published in the Federal Register on May 1,1996.
Action on this item has been completed.
II.B-1 The NRC should incorporate consideration of the licensee environment for problem identification and resolution, including raising concems, into the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) process.
MD 8.6, " Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance," was revised on January 27,1995 adding guidance in this area.
40
1.B-2 The NRC should develop inspection guidance for identifying problem areas in the workplace where employees may be reluctant to raise concems or provide information to the NRC. This guidance should also address how such information should be developed and channeled to NRC management.
Inspection Procedure 40500 was revised October 3,1994 to include guidance in this area.
II.B-3 The NRC should develop a turvey instrument to independently and credibly assess a licensee's environment for raising concems.
The Commission accepted the staffs recommendation not to develop a survey instrument as proposed in the November 16,1994 status report. However, after the General Accounting Office recommended that the staff reconsider this recommendation, the EDO tasked the Office of Research with reviewing existing methodologies for evaluating the safety-conscious work environment.
11.B-4 Allegation follow-up sensitivity and responsiveness should be included in performance appraisals for appropriate NRC staff and managers.
As of October 1995, employees' elements and standards contain appropriate criteria.
II.B-5 The NRC should place additional emphasis on periodic training for appropriate NRC staff on the role of allegations in the regulatory process, and on the processes for handling allegations.
The revision to MD 8.8 approved May 1,1996 requires refresher training every year.
l lI.B-6 The NRC should develop a readable, attractive brochure for industry employees. The brochure should clearly present a summary of the concepts, NRC policies, and legal processes associated with raising technical and/or harassment and intimidation (H&l) concems. It should also discuss the practical meaning of employee protection, including the limitations on NRC and Department of Labor (DOL) actions. In addition, the NRC should consider developing more active methods of presenting this information to industry employees.
The brochure was completed in October 1996. Since then, a copy has been mailed to each alleger as an attachment to the letter acknowledging receipt of his or her allegation.
I II.B-7 Management Directive 8.8 should include specific criteria and time-frames for initial and I periodic feedback to allegers, in order to ensure consistent agency practice.
I 41 l
The May 1,1996 revision to MD 8.8 requires a letter be sent to the alleger within 30 days of receipt of an allegation, every six months thereafter, and within 30 days of completing the inspection or investigation, ll.B-8 The NRC should develop a standard form to be included with alleger close out correspondence, to solicit feedback on the NRC's handling of a given concem.
In the November 16,1994, status report to the Commission, the staff informed the Commission that the survey would be conducted on a trial basis with a sample of allegers. In December 1995, the staff completed mailing survey forms to 145 allegers soliciting feedback on the NRC's handling of their concoms Responses were received from 44 individuals,25 of which are complimentary, and 19 expressed dissatisfaction with the NRC's handling of their allegations.
Those that were dissatisfied expressed concem with timeliness of correspondence and review, quality of the review, identity protection, and the handling of harassment and intimidation allegations in general. The staff has already taken corrective action to address these issues. Action on this item is considered complete.
II.B-9 The NRC should designate a full-time, senior individual for centralized coordination and oversight of all phases of allegation management, designated as the agency allegation manager, with direct access to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO), program office directors, and regional administrators.
The allegation advisor started on February 6,1996.
II.B-10 All program office and regional office allegation coordinators should participate in periodic counterpart meetings.
Counterpart meetings are being held on an annual basis. Action on this item is considered complete.
II.B-11 The agency allegation manager should conduct periodic audits of the quality and consistency of ARB (ARB) decisions, allegation referrals, inspection report documentation, and allegation case files.
Three rounds of audits of NMSS, NRR, and the four regions have been completed and will continue on an annual basis. Action on this item is considered complete.
II.B-12 Criteria for referring allegations to licensees should be clarified to ensure consistent application among ARBS, program offices, and the regions.
Criteria providing clarification on referring allegations to licensees were included in the May 1,1996, revision of MD 8.8.
42
li.B-13 The NRC should revise the Allegation Management System to be able to trend and monitor an allegation from receipt to the completion of agency action.
The software was installed in October 1996 and is currently in use.
II.B-14 Using the Allegation Management System, the NRC should monitor both H&l and technical allegations to discern trends or sudden increases that might justify the NRC questioning the licensee as to the root causes of such changes and trends. This effort should include monitoring contractor allegations-both those arising at a specific licensee and those against a particular contractor across the country.
The staff is currently monitoring allegations against licensees and contractors for adverse trends.
II.B-15 The NRC should periodically publish raw data on the number of technical and H&l allegations (for power reactor licensees, this should be per site, per year).
The NRC published raw data on allegations in the AEOD Annual Report issued in July 1996 and the first version of this annual report.
II.B-16 The NRC should resolve any remaining policy differences between the Office of Investigations (01) and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) on protecting the identity of allegers (including confidentiality agreements)in inspection and investigation activities.
The policy differences have been resolved and a description of the protection available to allegers in each instance is included in the May 1,1996, revision of MD 8.8. In addition, a revised Commission policy statement on protecting the identity of allegers and confidential sources that clearly states the protections afforded and the limitations of the protection were published in the Federal Registeron May 23,1996.
II.B-17 Regions should provide toll-free 800 numbers for individuals to use in making allegations.
Toll-free service was implemented October 1,1995. Action on this item is considered complete.
' ll.C-1 The Commission should support current considerations within the DOL to transfer Section 211 implementation from the Wage & Hour Division to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
DOL completed the transfer of investigation of all Section 211 complaints to OSHA in February 1997. Action on this item is considered complete.
II.C-2 The Commission should support legislation to amend Section 211 as follows:
43
(1) Revising the statute to provide 120 days (from the filing of the complaint) ~
to conduct the DOL investigation; 30 days from the investigation finding to request a hearing; 240 additional days to issue an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision; and 90 days for the Secretary of Labor to issue a final decision when an ALJ decision is appealed. This would allow 480 days (from when the complaint is filed) to complete the process.
(2) Revising the statute to provide that reinstatement decisions be immediately effective following a DOL finding based on an administrative investigation.
(3) Revising the statute to provide that the DOL defends its findings of discrimination and ordered relief in the adjudicatory process if its orders are contested by the employer. This would not preclude the complainant from also being a party in the proceeding.
The NRC has drafted changes to the legislation that would establish realistic timeliness standards and provide the reinstatement described in (2) above. The draft was provided to DOL on November 11,1996 for comment and meetings were held with DOL in March and September 1997 to discuss the draft. On December 22,1997, the NRC received comments from DOL for review.
Following completion of the review, the staff will meet with DOL to finalize the changes. DOL already has rulemaking underway to implement item (3).
II.C-3 The NRC should recommend to the Secretary of Labor that adjudicatory decisions under Section 211 be published in a national reporting or computer-based system.
DOL is making the findings of Administrative Law Judges and Secretary of Labor decisions available on the intemet.
II.C-4 The NRC should take a more active role in the DOL process. Consistent with relevant statutes, Commission regulations, and agency resources and priorities, the NRC should normally make available information, agency positions, and agency witnesses that may assist in completing the adjudication record on discrimination issues. Such disclosures should be made as part of the public record. The NRC should consider filing amicus curiae briefs, where warranted, in DOL adjudicatory proceedings.
The May 1,1996, revision of MD 8.8 contains guidance to the staff on this issue.
II.C-5 The NRC should designate the agency allegation manager as the focal point to assist persons in requesting NRC information, positions, or witnesses relevant to DOL litigation under Section 211 (or State court litigation conceming wrongful discharge issues).
Information on this process, and on how to contact the NRC focal point, should be included in the brochure for industry employees (see Recommendation ll.B-6).
44
1 a
The AAA has assumed these duties. The May 1,1996, revision of MD 8.8 includes these duties under the responsibility of the AAA. The public brochure contains information on this topic.
II.C-6 The NRC should work with the DOL to establish a shared data base to track DOL cases Because of the improvement in communication between OSHA and the NRC -
conceming complaints received by OSHA and the cost of establishing a shared database, the staff decided not to pursue this option. However, OSHA does provide a list of complaint received on a quarterly basis. The list also provides a status on previous cases, ll.C-7 The NRC should revise the criteria for prioritizing NRC investigations involving discrimination. The following criteria should be considered for assigning a high investigation priority:
(1) Allegations of discrimination as a result of providing information directly to the NRC; (2) Allegations of discrimination caused by a manager above first-line supervisor (consistent with current Enforcement Policy classification of Severity Level I or il violations);
(3) Allegations of discrimination where a history of findings of discrimination (by the DOL or the NRC) or settlements suggest a programmatic rather than an isolated issue; (4) Allegations of discrimination which appear particularly blatant or egregious.
Revised criteria for prioritizing 01 investigations of H&l concems were issued by the EDO on October 12,1995 and are included in the May 1,1996, revision to MD 8.8.
II.C-8 Ol investigators should continue to interface with the DOL to minimize duplication of effort on parallel investigations. Where the NRC is conducting parallel investigations with the DOL, Ol procedures should provide that its investigators contact the DOL on a case-by-case basis to share information and minimize duplication of effort. The DOL process should be monitored to determine if NRC investigations should be conducted, continued, or priorities changed. In that regard, settlements should be given special consideration.
01 is implementing this recommendation.
- II.C-9 When an individual who has not yet filed with the DOL brings an H&l allegation to the NRC, the NRC should inform the person (1) that a full-scale investigation will not necessarily be conducted; (2) that the DOL and not the NRC provides the process for 45
obtaining a personal remedy; and (3) of the method for filing a complaint with the DOL.
If, after the ARB review, Ol determines that an investigation will not be conducted, the individual should be so informed.
Guidance has been included in the May 1,1996, revision of MD 8.8 to implement this recommendation.
II.C-10 Ol should discuss cases involving Section 211 issues with the Department of Justice (DOJ) as early as appropriate so that a prompt DOJ declination, if warranted, can allow information acquired by Ol to be used in the DOL process.
Ol is implementing this recommendation.
II.C-11 The implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Tennessee Valley Authority Inspector General (WA IG) should be reconsidered following the completion of the ongoing revie.w.
The MOU with the TVA IG was terminated by a letter dated August 30,1994, to the TVA-lG from the 01 Director.
II.D-1 For cases that are appealed and result in DOL ALJ adjudication, the NRC should continue the current practice of normally initiating the enforcement process following a finding of discrimination by the DOL ALJs. However, the licensee should be required to provide the normal response required by 10 CFR 2.201.
A revision to the Enforcement Manual implementing this recommendation was issued 12/31/94.
II.D-2 Additional Severity Level ll examples should be added to Supplement Vil of the Enforcement Policy to address hostile work environments and discrimination in cases where the protected activity involved providing information of high safety significance.
Supplement Vil should also recognize restrictive agreements and threats of discrimination as examples of violations at least at a Severity Level ll1. Supplement Vil should also provide that fewer significant violations involving discrimination issues are categorized at a Severity Level IV, The Enforcement Policy was revised November 28,1994 (59 FR 60697) to incorporate new examples in Supplement Vil to describe discrimination by individuals above first line supervisor as Severity Level 11, threats of discrimination and restrictive agreements as Severity Level 111, and fewer significant acts of discrimination as Severity Level IV.
li.D-3 The Commission should seek an amendment to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide for a civil penalty of up to $500,000 per day for each violation. If this provision is enacted into law, the Enforcement Policy should be amended to provide that this increased authority should normally be used only for willful violations, including those involving discrimination.
46
~
- {l L
The Enforcement Policy Review Team did not recommend seeking legislation to increase civil penalty authority. The Commission agreed with this decision.
II.D-4 Pending an amendment to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act, the flexibility in the Enforcement Policy should be changed to provide that the base penalty for willful violations involving discrimination, regardless of severity level, should be the amount currently specified for a Severity Level I violation.
The Enforcement Policy Review Team did not recommend changing the base civil penalty for willful violations involving discrimination. Willfulness will continue to be addressed through raising the severity level. The Commission agreed with this decision.
II.D-5 The Enforcement Policy should be changed, for civil penalty cases involving discrimination violations, to normally allow mitigation only for corrective action.
Mitigation for corrective action should be warranted only when it includes both broad remedial action as well as a personal remedy to address the potential chilling effect.
Mitigation or escalation for corrective action should consider the timing of the corrective action.
In December 1994, the Enforcement Manual was modified to specify that civil penalties in discrimination cases will be mitigated only if the licensee takes I prompt and extensive corrective action. This change was also incorporated in the revision to the Enforcement Policy issued on November 28,1994.
i ll.D-6 For violations involving discrimination issues not within the criteria for a high priority I investigation (see Recommendation ll.C-7), citations should not normally be issued nor 01 investigations conducted if, (1) discrimination, without a complaint being filed with the DOL or an allegation made to the NRC, is identified by the licensee and corrective action is taken to remedy the situation, or (2) after a complaint is filed with the DOL, the matter is settled before an evidentiary hearing begins, provided the licensee posts a notice (a) that a discrimination complaint was made, (b) that a settlement occurred, and (c) if the DOL's investigation found discrimination, that remedial action has been taken to reemphasize the importance of the need to be able to raise concerns without fear of retaliation.
This change was incorporated in the revision to the Enforcement Policy issued I on November 28,1994. l II.D-7 in taking enforcement actions involving discrimination, use of the deliberate misconduct rule for enforcement action against the responsible individual should be considered.
47
A revision to the Enforcement Manual implementing this recommendation was issued December 31,1994.
II.E-1 Regional Administrators and Office Directors should respond to credible reports of reasonable fears of retaliation, when the individual is willing to be identified, by holding documented meetings or issuing letters to notify senior licensee management that the NRC:
(1) Has received information that an individual is concemed that retaliation may occur for engaging in protected activities, (2) Will monitor actions taken against this individual, and (3) Will consider enforcement action if discrimination occurs, including applying the wrongdoer rule.
The May 1,1996, revision of MD 8.8 includes guidance on this issue.
II.E-2 Before contacting a licensee as proposed in Recommendation ll.E-1, the NRC should:
(1) Contact the individual to determine whether he or she objects to disclosure of his or her identity, and (2) Explain to the individual the provisions of Section 211 and the DOL process (e.g., that it is the DOL and not the NRC that provides a personal remedy).
The May 1,1996, revision of MD 8.8 includes guidance on this issue.
II.E-3 The Commission should include in its policy statement (as proposed in Recommendation ll.A-1) expectations for licensees' handling of complaints of discrimination, as follows:
(1) Senior management of licensees should become directly involved in allegations of discrimination.
(2) Power reactor licensees and large fuel cycle facilities should be encouraged to adopt intemal policies providing a holding period for their employees and contractors' employees that would maintain or restore pay and benefits when the licensee has been notified by an employee that, in the employee's view, discrimination has occurred. This voluntary holding period would allow the licensee to investigate the matter, reconsider the facts, negotiate with the employee, and inform the employee of the final decision.
After the employee has been notified of the licensee's final decision, the
- holding period should continue for an additiontal two weeks to allow a 48
e reasonable time for the employee to file a complaint with the DOL. If the employee files within that time, the licensee should continue the holding period until the DOL finding is made based on an investigation (currently the Area Office decision). If the employee does not file with the DOL within this 2-week period, then the holding period would terminate.
(Notwithstanding this limitation on the filing of a complaint with the DOL to preserve the holding period, the employee clearly would retain the legal right to file a complaint with the DOL within 180 days of the alleged dacrimination.) The holding period should continue should the licensee appeal an adverse Area Office finding.
The NRC would not consider the licensee's use of a holding period to be discrimination even if the person is not restored to his or her former position, provided that the employee agrees to the conditions of the holding period, and that pay and benefits are maintained.
(3) Should it be determined that discrimination did occur, the licensee's handling of the matter (including the extent of its investigation, its efforts to minimize the chilling effect, and the promptness of providing a personal remedy to the individual) would be considered in any associated enforcement action. While not adopting a holding period would not be corisidered as an escalation factor, use of a holding period would be considered a mitigating factor in any sanction.
The final policy statement that was published in the Federal Register on J
May 1,1996 addressed these issues. Action on this item has been l completed. ,
I II.E 4 In appropriate cases, the EDO (or other senior NRC management) should notify the licensee's senior management by letter:
(1) Bringing the matter to the attention of senior licensee management, noting that the NRC has not taken a position on the merits of the l allegation but emphasizing the importance the NRC places on a quality-conscious environment where people believe they are free to raise concems, and the potential fm adverse impact on this environment if this allegation is not appropriatt v 'asolved; (2) Requesting the personaii, >lvement of senior licensee management in the matter, to ensure that the employment action taken was not prompted by the employee's involvement in protected activity, and to consider whether action is needed to address the potential for a chilling effect; (3) Requesting the licensee to place the employee in a holding period, as described in the Commission's pc4cy statement (see Recommendation ll.E-3);
49 i
)
(4) Requiring a full report of the actions that senior licensee management took on this request within 45 days.
(5) Noting that the licensee's decision to adopt a holding period will be considered as a mitigating factor in any enforcement decision should discrimination be determined to have occurred.
in such cases, prior to issuing the letter, the employee should be notified (a) that the DOL and not the NRC provides personal remedies; and (b) that the NRC will be sending a letter revealing the person's identity to the licensee, requiring an explanation from the company and requesting a holding period in accordance with the Commission's policy statement.
The final policy statement published in the Federa/ Register on May 1,1996 addresses the holding period. The May 1,1996, revision of MD 8.8 addresses contacting the alleger.
II.E-5 The NRC should normally issue a chilling effect letter if a licensee contests a DOL Area Office finding of discrimination, and a holding period is not adopted (see Recommendation ll.E-3). A letter would not be needed if Section 211 is amended to provide for reinstatement following a DOL administrative finding of discrimination (see Recommendation ll.C-2). When a chilling effect letter is issued, appropriate follow-up action should be taken.
A revision to the Enforcement Manual implementing this recommendation was issued December 31,1994.
ii.E-6 A second investigative finding of discrimination within a 18-month period should normally result in a meeting between the licensee's senior management and the NRC Regional Administrator.
A revision to the Enforcement Manual implementing this recommendation was issued December 31,1994.
II.E-7 If mor' an two investigative findings of discrimination within a 18-month period, the NRC suld consider stronger action, including issuing a Demand for Information.
A revision to the Enforcement Manual implementing this recommendation was issued December 31,1994.
ll.E-8 The NRC should consider action when there is a trend in settlements without findings of discrimination.
A revision to the Enforcement Manual implementing this recommendation was issued December 31,1994.
50
4 9
e e
APPENDIX 3 GAO RECOMMENDATIONS i
51 1
I
9 STATUS OF GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS The General Accounting Office (GAO), in its report " NUCLEAR EMPLOYEE SAFETY CONCERNS - Allegation System Offers Better Protection, but important issues Remain," made specdic recommendations for improving the timeliness of the Department of Labor's allegations processing, the NRC's ability to monitor the allegation process, and the NRC's knowledge of the work environment at nuclear power plants. The recommendations and the NRC's responses are provided below.
Recomrnendation 1-To improve the timeliness of Labor's processing, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor establish and meet realistic timeliness standards for all three steps in its process for
' investigating discrimination complaints by employees in the nuclear power industry.
NRC Responsie' l' The NRC agrees with this recommendation. As noted on page 16 of the report, the NRC has drafted changes to the legislation that would establish realistic timeliness standards. The draft was provided to DOL on November 11,1996 for comment and meetings were held with DOL in March and September 1997 to discuss the draft. On December 22,1997, the NRC received comments from DOL for review. Following completion of the review, the staff will meet with DOL to finalize the changes.
Recommendation 2 To improve the NRC's ability to monitor tne allegation process, we recommend that the Chairman,' NRC, complete the implementation of the NRC review team's recommendation to establish and operate the revised Allegation Management System in all organizational components within the NRC. We also recommend that the Chairman, NRC, and the Secretary of Labor coordinate information on the status of cases at Labor.
NRC Response.
As noted in the original response, the NRC agrees with the intent of this recommendation.
However, we do not believe it was the review team's intent that the Allegation Management System (AMS) be established and operated in all organizational components within the NRC.
The review team's recommendation concerning the AMS was that:
"The NRC should revise the Allegation Management System to be able to track and monitor an allegation from receipt to the completion of agency action."
The AMS currently has the capability to track and monitor allegations from receipt to completion of agency action, including allegations that involve complaints of discrimination filed with DOL.
This tracking includes the NRC's investigative results and any subsequent enforcement action, as well as each stage of the DOL process. We believe the AMS currently performs the L 52 L
functions recommended by GAO. However, the information systems used by the Offices of enforcement and Investigations are being updated to improve the efficiency of sharing data.
With regard to whom has access to the system, the primary users of the AMS are the four regions and the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, and State Programs. These organizations are responsible for receiving, resolving, and tracking allegations. Other offices that use data from the AMS are the Offices of Enforcement (OE), investigation (01), and Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD).
The pnmary users, OE,01, and AEOD currently have direct access to the AMS and the other offices have access to the data in AMS.
In response to the recommendation that NRC and DOL coordinate information on the status of complaints at DOL, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)is providing a list of complaints filed and current status, on a quarterly basis. NRC uses the list to verify that we are aware of the complaints filed and current status, and that the complaints are being tracked in the AMS. Since OSHA numbers their cases, the NRC will be able to track complaints filed with DOL as they progress through the DOL process.
Recommendation 3:
To improve NRC's knowledge of the work environment at nuclear power plants, we recommend that the Chairman, NRC, ensure the implementation of recommendations to provide information on the extent to which the environment in nuclear power plants is favorable for employees to report health or safety hazards without fear of discrimination. This would include recommendations on tracking and monitoring allegation cases and settlements, routinely providing feedback forms in allegation case closecut correspondence, systematically following up on chilling effect letters, and using a survey or other systematic method of obtaining information from employees.
NRC Resoonse:
The NRC is currently tracking, monitoring, and trending allegations for the purpose of providing insights into the environment at nuclear power plants. Additionally, the AMS was modified to accommodate tracking, monitoring, and trending of settlements that occur during the DOL process and chilling effect letters issued by the NRC.
With respect to including feedback forms in closure correspondence, the schedule for mailing feedback forms to another random sample of allegers slipped one quarter and is now scheduled for December 31,1997. After analyzing the responses and evaluating the resource implications, the NRC will decide whether to routinely include the form in all future closure
, correspondence.
On February 26,1997, the NRC published in the Federal Register a request for public comment on several strategies for evaluating the environment at licensee facilities. The comment period closed May 27,1997. A total of 31 comments was received related to the February 26,1997 Federal Register Notice on A Safety Conscious Work Environment (Notice). Generally stated, the majority of the commentors, including the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEl) and the Union of 53
4 Concemed Scientists (UCS), while supporting the importance of establishing and maintaining a safety-conscious work environment at nuclear facilities, opposed proceeding with establishing a standardized approach for licensees who had failed to establish and maintain a safety-conscious work environment. Almost all commenters agreed that existing requirements and regulatory options available to the Commission are sufficient to meet expectations in this area and that new requirements and policies were not needed. The staff has submitted a paper to the Commission to resolve the comments and address the issue of the safety-conscious work environment.
Separate from responding to the request for public comments, the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research is continuing its review of methodologies for assessing work environments.
54 u--
4 9
9 s
e APPENDIX 4 ALLEGATIONS STATISTICS - OPERATING REACTORS 55
~
ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED IN FISCAL YEAR - ONSITE SOURCES ONLY Site 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
$ 3 5 3 2 ARKANSAS 11 4 8 2 7 BEAVER VALLEY 3 9 1 3 10 BRAIDWOOD 36 24 8 17 19 BROWNS FERRY 22 13 10 4 19 SRUNSWICK 2 4 4 2 7 BYRON 3 1 3 4 5 CALLAWAY 7 4 4 7 4 CALVERT CLIFFS 2 8 2 4 3 CATAWBA 3 17 9 9 23 CLINTON 15 5 7 6 10 COMANCHE PEAK 4 8 3 2 3 COOK 9 6 9 7 COOPER 1 5 3 4 16 18 CRYSTAL RIVER 10 3 3 3 5 DAVIS-8 ESSE 13 7 12 19 13 DIABLO CANYON 11 8 14 4 13 DRESDEN DUANE ARNOLD 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 FARLEY FFRMI 9 9 5 7 8 1 5 3 4 FITZPATRICK 1 5 6 3 2 4 FORT CALHOUN GINNA 2 2 3 3 2 7 2 GRAND GULF HARRIS 1 5 2 2 2 HATCH 7 4 6 4 15 INDIAN POINT 2 5 1 5 6 6 INDIAN POINT 3 9 20 9 4 16 LASALLE 3 6 7 8 8 LIMERICK 12 12 3 3 7 MCGUIRE 8 2l 4 1 MILLSTONE 29 37 40 60 63 MONTICELLO 2 6 1 NINE MILE POINT 9 6 7 7 8 NORTH ANNA 10 2 6 5 OCONEE 1 4 14 7 2 OYSTER CREEK 7 2 4? 4 5 PALISADES 3 3 8I 3 3 PALO VERDE 49 17 19 14 16 PEACH BOTTOM 6 5 3 4 6 PERRY 4 5 6 8 PILGRIM 7 4 6f 3 2
, 66 i
3 L--
-l
'f .
POINT BEACH 1 2 1 9
~
PRAIRIE ISLAND 4 2 2 3 2 QUAD CITIES 5 5 4 6 8 RfVER BEND 13 17 12 14 6 ROBINSON 4 1 5 1 1 SALEM / HOPE CREEK 8 18 14 43 21 SAN ONOFRE 8 12 27 16 32 SEABROOK 1 2 1 2 3 SEQUOYAH 22 15 20 20 8 SOUTH TEXAS 38 17 13 16 14 ST LUCIE 2 7 14 45 61 SUMMER 2 2 3r 8 SURRY 3 6 3h 3 1 SUSOUEHANNA 8 5 2 29 19 THREE MILE ISLAND 2 1 4 TURKEY POtNT 13 6 9 17 18 VERMONT YANKEE 1 1 2 4 VOGTLE 4 11 8e E 10 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 10 98 12 15 WATERFORD 4 3 5 24 9 WATTS BAR 65 72 46 27 16 WOLF CREEK 4 '7 2 10 13 ZION 3 9 8 i 6 37
4 DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED DURING FISCAL YEAR ONSITE SOURCES ONLY -
Site 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ARKANSAS 1 2 2 BEAVER VALLEY 1 4 1 1 BRAIDWOOD 4 1 2 BROWNS FERRY 7 5 2 4 2 BRUNSWICK 6 2 2 5 8YRON 1 1 CALLAWAY 1 1 1 1 1 CALVERT CLIFFS 1 2 3 1 CLINTON 1 1 1 6 CCMANCHE PEAK 1 1 1 2 4 COOK 1 3 1 1 2 COOPER 2 3 2 CRYSTAL RIVER 4 1 2 5 DAVIS-8 ESSE 2 1 1 1 DIARLO CANYON 2 2 1 3 2 DRESDEN 3 1 2 1 DUANE ARNOLD 1 FERMI 4 2 3 4 1 FITZPATRICK 2 i FORT CALHOUN 1 1 1 1 1 GRAND GULF 1 2 HARRIS 1 HATCH 1 1 INDIAN POINT 2 3 1 1 INDIAN POINT 3 5 5 1 2 LASALLE 1 3 i LIMERICK 2 2 MCGUIRE 4 MILLSTONE 8 13 14 23 23 NINE MILE POINT 2 2 4 1 NORTH ANNA 1 1 OCONEE 1 1 1 OYSTER CREEK 1 1 1 1
. PALISADES 1 1 1 PALO VERDE 22 8 5 3 2 PEACH BOTTOM 1 2 1 1 PERRY 3 3 i PILGRIM 2 1 3 2 POINT BEACH 1 3 PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 1 QUAD CITIES 1 1 1 1 58
I '
9 RIVER BEND 4 1 10 3 2 ROBINSON 3 1 1 SALEMMOPE CREEK 1 5 7 12 2 l SAN ONOFRE 4 4 3 4 8 SEQUOYAH 7 6 3 5 1 SOUTH TEXAS 12 8 6 5 3 ST LUCIE 1 2 4 SUMMER 1 SURRY 1 1 SUSOUEHANNA 2 1 1 1 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 TURKEY POINT 5 2 1 VERMC.fT YANKEE 1 1 VOGTLE 2 1 i WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 6 3 3 3 WATERFORD 2 3 9l 2 WATTS BrR 19 19 16 51 5
( WOLF CREEK 2 l ZION 3 2! 7 l
l t
I i
59 I
SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR RECEIVED Site 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ARKANSAS 3 1 3 PFAVER VALLEv i 1 2 BRAIDWOOD 1 5 1 1 2 BROWNS FERRY 11 11 3 6 1 BRUNSWICK 7 8 6 2 3 BYRON 2 1 1 CALLAWAY 1 2 2 2 CALVERT CLIFFS 3 2 CATAWBA 1 3 1 2 1 CLINTON 8 3 5 7 COMANCHE PEAK 10 3 3 1 1 COOK '
1 4 1 COOPER 1 4 2 4 CRYSTAL RIVER 1 2 1 8 7 DAVIS-BESSE 1 1 1 DIABLO CANYON 2 2 9 4 1 DRESDEN 7 2 6 2 4 DUANE ARNOLD 1 1 FARLEY 1 2 I FERMI 5 2 1 3 1 FITZPATRICK 1 2 FORT CALHOUN 2 3 GINNA i 1 GRAND GULF 1 1 2 2 1 HARRIS 1 1 HATCH 3 2 3 5 f
INDIAN POINT 2 2 2 2 INDIAN POINT 3 3 5 3 1 1 l
i LASALLE 1 2 3 1 LIMERICK 3 4 2 1 MCGUIRE 1 11!
MILLSTONE 13 13 15 13 'A MONTICELLO 1 1 NINE MILE POINT 2 2 1 NORTH ANNA 2 2 2 OCONEE 2 2 l '
OYSTER CREEK 1 2 2 1 PALISADES 1 1 2 1 2
PALO VERDE 5 7 6 5 4 l PEACH BOTTOM i 1 3 PERRY 1 2 PILGRIM 2 i POINT BEACH 1 1 PRAIR:E ISLAND 1 1 60 a_
QUAD CITIES 2 3 23 1 1
~
RIVER BEND 8 10 5 6 1 ROBINSON 2 1 1 SALEMMODE CREEK 1 7 8 9 7 SAN ONOFRE 1 4 13 7 4 SEABROOK 1 1 SEQUOYAH 5 4 7 : 7 5 SOUTH TEXAS 18 9 3 4 2 ST LUCIE 1 1 6 26 21 SUMMER 1 1 5 SURRY 3 2 1 1 SUSQUEHANNA 2 2 1 13 3 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 1 TURKEY POINT 6 3 5 6 5 VERMONT YANKEE 1 1 1 VOGTLE 5 2. 3 4 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR S 3 3 2 WATERFORD 2 2 5 9 WATTS BAR 32 32 21 10 3 WOLF CREEK 4 4 3 1 ZION 3 1 3 2 l
l a
61 )
1 i
l
ALLEGATIONS OPEN AS OF OCTOBER 1,1997 Site 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total Open ARKANSAS 3 3 BEAVER VALLEY 1 3 4 BRAIDWOOD 3 3 BROWNS FERRY t 1 -5 6 BRUNSWICK 1 2 16 19 BYRON 2 2 CALVERT CLIFFS 2 2 1
CATAWBA 1 CLINTON 12 12 COMANCHE PEAK 1 8 9 COOK 1 4 5 COOPER '
1 7 8 CRYSTAL RIVER 2 2 7 11 DAVIS-BESSE 4 4 DIABLO CANYON 1 1 10 12 DRESDEN 5 5 DUANE ARNOLD 2 2 FARLEY 1 1 FEF341 1 4 5 FITZPATRICK 2 2 FORT CALHOUN 1 3 4 GRAND GULF 1 1 2 HARRIS 2 2 HATCH 1 5 6 INDIAN POINT 2 1 3 4 INDIAN POINT 3 1 4 5 KEWAUNEE 1 1 LASALLE 4 4 LIMERICK 3 3 MCGUIRE 2 2 MILLSTONE 1 2 22 33 58 MONTICELLO 1 1 g MILE POINT 1 2 3 NORTH ANNA 3 3 OCONEE 1 1 2 OYSTER CREEK 4 4 PAL;SADES 2 2 PALO VERDE 1 1 6 8 PEACH BOTTOM 4 4 PERRY 2 5 7 PILGRIM i 2 2 5 POINT BEACH 8 8 PRAIRIE ISLAND 2 2 QUAD CITIES 1 4 5 62
"a e
a RfVER BEND 1 1 2
~
ROBINSON 1 1 2 EM; HOPE CREEK 7 11 18 SAN ONOFRE 2 12 14 SEABROOK 1 2 3 SEQUOYAH i 1 5 4 11 SOUTH TEXAS 2 10 12 ST LUCIE 1 27 28 SURRY 1 1 SUSOUEHANNA 1 10 11 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 2 3 TURKEY POINT 3 7 10 VERMONT YANKEE 2 4 6 VOGTLE 4 4 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 3 9 12 WATERFORD 5 5 WATTS BAR L 2 5 10 17 WOLF CREEK 10 10 ZION i 2 29 31 63
w h
E f
APPENDlX 5 ALLEGATION STATISTICS - MATERIALS LICENSEES 64
W
. 1 ALLEGATIONS RECElVED CONCERNING MATERIALS LICENSEES (Licensees that received two or more allegations from on-site sources in FY97)
COMPANY 1993 1994 1996 1996 1997 PENNSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY OF PHILADELPHIA 1 4 V A , DEPARTMENT OF PHILADELPHIA 2 4 NDT SERVICES . INC . CAGUAS 3 V. A MEDICAL CTR , LONG BEACH 1 1 3 3 PORTSMOI.nN DIFFUSION PIKETON 2 PADUCAH DIFFUSION. WEST PADUCAH 2 CTI, INC., ANCHORAGE 5 2 NAVY, DEPARTMENT OF THE. WASHINGTON 2 2 DUPONT MERCK. 2 AsHFORD PHARMALOGIC CORP, SYNCOR 2 DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED CONCERNING MATERIALS LICENSEES (Licensees that received at least one discrimination allegation from an on-site source in FY97)
COMPANY 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ARCTIC SLOPE INSP SERVICES INC , ANCHORAGE 1 BATTELLE COLUMBUS DfVISION COLUMBUS 1 1 CORIELL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 1 DOE PORTSMOUTH GDP 1 EG&G DEFENSE MATERIAL INC TOOLE 1 GEISBNGER MEDICAL CENTER DANVILLE 1 KOPPEL STEEL BEAVER FALLG 1 1 MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY OF ANN ARBOR 1 1
LNNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING ST PAUL NDT SERVICES INC CAGUAS 1 PENNSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY OF PHILADEL PHIA 1 ST MARY'S MEDICAL CENTER EVANSVILLE 1 TEMPLE UNfVERSITY PHILADELPHIA 2 1 1 UMDNJ NEWARK 1 UNITED NUCLEAR CORP 1 UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL CENTER 1 V. A MEDICAL CENTER. DECATUR 1 V A MEDICAL CTR WILMINGTON 1 V A . DEPARTMENT OF BRONX 1 V. A . DEPARTMENT OF LOMA LINDA 2 1 1 1 V A . DEPARTMENT OF. PHILADELPHIA 1 1 WILLS EYE HOSPITAL PHILADELPHIA 1 65
f e
g F
F APPENDIX 6 TWO-YEAR TREND PLOTS FOR SELECTED REACTOR SITES l-66
o a
o u 6 e e $ $ *$ $
Dec-95 1
Jan-M g Feb-96 g g Mar-96 g Apr-M g May-M Jun-96 g Jul-M g Aug-96 -
g E
seeM g 2
- f o
Oct-M , g 5 Nov-96 g E B
~-* a s y
$ o Jan-97 ,
-gll0 Feb-97 g Mar-97 g Apr-97 May-97 ,
Jun-97 JubS7 Aug-97 g Sep-97 i
Oct-97 g I Nov-97 1
s O
a n > e a e C -t i Dec-95 Jan-M Feb-M Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 g Aug-M g m
s.p-o6 9 d
O oct-96 5 i!!
n 5
Nov 96 g w m r- o-oso-M g 5
m
- o Jan-97 g
a Fet>97 h
O Mar-97 ,
Apr-97 May 97 Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug 97 Sep-97 I Oct-97 Nov-97 l
i i
c
o O
J o s u u s sn e .a .e e Dec-95 Jan-96 Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 >
E m
S*P-96 Q o
Oct-96 $
i!!
Nov-96 .
-W 0<
N O Dec-96 z a
- NO Jan-97 Feb-97 . .
y Mar-97 Apr-97 May-97 Jun 97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 >
Nov-97
A s
v o . w w
- en a w .m o Dec-M Jan-M Feb-M Mar-96 Apr-96 -
May-H Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 >
F m
Sep-96 @
d o
Oct-96 5 e A Nov-96 $
z 0
g o o Dec-M
~
.' f5 o
Jan-sr -
Feb-97 y m
5 Mar-97 Ar>r-97 May 97 Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Nov-97
A e
J 0
+
2 .s u u s e o Dec-95 Jan-96 Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun46 Jul-96 Aug-96 y F
m Sep-96 , .
Q o
Oct-96 $
R Nov-96 Y$
P <
E B Dec-96 y
- z $
o Jan-97 Feb 97
- Mar-97 .,
Apr-97 May-97 Jun-97 -
Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Nov-97
A
?
o :* u to a w
. f*
m
- o a .4 m Dec 95 Jan-96 Fet>96 Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 %
. E O
Sep-96 y 8
Oct.96 a
Nov-96 $ @
E B i
- I y l 0 O Jan-97
- f;p a
Feb 97 O
Mar-97 i
Apr-97 1
May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep 97 Oct-97 Nov-97
' i
A o
8 4
e 4
o -* ** se a cm .a w Dec-95 Jan-96 Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 ,
E ser96 @
- f o
Oct-96 g
=
T._ m Nov-96 . , l @
Dec-96
}
Jan-97 Feb-97 d Mar-97 Apr-97 May-97
Jun-97 -
Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 . . .
Nov-97
A O
P ? H o a .s e u m u Dec-95 Jan-M Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 ,
Aug-96 g E
Sep-96 0 9
m Oct-96 E
a Nov-96 yQ 5 E Dec-96 N
= il0 Jan-97 f
a Feb-97 $
E D
Mar-97 Apr-97 May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Nov-97 4
P 6',,
4 P ? H H F o u -* a w a u a a . a a Dec-95 Jan-96 Feb 96 Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun 96 Jul-96 Aug-96 p i;;
Sep-96 O o
Z Oct-96 #
o Nov-96 8 E
Dec-96 y' h
z <
_ O Jan-97
- c Feb-97 0
Mar-97 Apr 97 May-97 ,
Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Nov-97 ,