ML23180A073

NRC-2022-000184 - Resp 2 - Interim

ML23180A073
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/10/2022
From:	NRC/OCIO
To:
Shared Package
ML23180A070	List: ML23180A071 ML23180A072 ML23180A073
References
NRC-2022-000184
Download: ML23180A073 (1)

Text

From: Castelveter, David Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 202115:43:16 +0000 To: Harrington, Holly

Subject:

FW: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Please do not forward.

r:>civtvl A C-ClsteLveter l::i,S. Nuclecir Regu lcitor11 C-o1M-1M,tsstoll\\,

Dtrector, off we of Pub ltc Aff citrs 1.1.555 Ro ci<?.vtl le PUR,e (MC!tL Sto:p 0-1.GD3 )

RDc!R,vm e. MD 2 o g,.s2 301.- :1:i.s-s;w o (o )

2:1:0-303-056.3 (C,)

-7 -

vlcivtvl.ccistelveter@ll\\,rc.gov www.ll\\,rc.gov Sta y Connec ted to th e NRC f ~ (I ** in ~

From: Hawkens, Roy <Roy.Hawkens@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 07:31 PM To: Castelveter, Dav id <David.Castelveter@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

H i David,

FY I.

Best Wishes,

Roy

From: Hawkens, Roy Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Ashley <Ashley.Roberts@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Good Afternoon Ashley,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your drafts. I have a few high-altitude observations.

As David correctly intimates in his email below, it will be a challenging (perhaps impossible) task to define a Phase 3 that will satisfy everyone. I support David's suggestion that (1) we need to assure employees that returning to the office is safe for everyone, including those who take public transportation and those who work in cubicles; (2) our policy should endeavor, in appearance and practice, to be reasonable,

impartial, even-handed, and fair -- from both an individual and institutional standpoint; (3) we should justify why in-person engagements are necessary to enhance or facilitate the fulfillment of our mission, and we should do this using objective, not anecdotal, evidence; and (4) it would be well to support our final position by reference to the policies of other agencies and organizations.

Also, although I recognize the need for well-defined rules, it is my impression that the rules, as drafted, may be viewed as unduly prescriptive and unnecessarily complicated.

The instructions in the memo, in addition to being more reader-friendly, also seemed to be more flexible, taking into account the differing needs of each office and the differing responsibilities of each Staff member.

Hang in there. Thank you for your efforts to formulate a process that will return us to the new normal.

Wishing you safety and health, Roy E. Roy Hawkens Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 301-415-5147

From : Castelveter, David < David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >

Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2021 5 :2 4 PM To: Lamary, Mary < Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >; Moore, Scott <Scott.Moore@nrc.gov >; Martin, Jody

<Jody.Martin@nrc.gov >; Dacus, Eugene <Eugene.Dacus@nrc.gov >; Decker, David

<David.Decker@nrc.gov >; Harrington, Holly < Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >; Johnson, Cherish

<Cherish.Johnson@nrc.gov >; Ficks, Ben < Ben.Ficks@nrc.gov >; Zobler, Marian

<Marian.Zobler@nrc.gov >; Clark, Brooke <Brooke.Clark@nrc.gov >; Ammon, Bernice

<Bern ice.Ammon@nrc.gov >; Mamish, Nader < Nader.Mamish@nrc.gov >; Skeen, David

<David.Skeen@nrc.gov >; Vietti-Cook, Annette <Annette.Vietti-Cook@nrc.gov >; Hawkens, Roy

<Roy.Hawkens@nrc.gov >

Cc: Roberts, Ashley < Ashley.Roberts@nrc.gov >

Subject:

RE: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Mary, thanks. I will provide editorial type comments to Ashley soon but a few early observations.

I recognize that this is a work in progress, and the newly proposed telework policy is in development and quite likely necessary, but the Phase 3 direction will go over like a lead brick in a deep pool.

Whether warranted or not, expectation by many employees are that they will be able to permanently telework or less than one, maybe two days per week. Many expect four days per week, if not more. Without OCHCO pre-approval, two-three days per week for many will be hard to swallow, despite prior policy and an anticipated return to pre COVID conditions. Yes, at some point we need to define the new normal.

We should be sure to cite other organization policies, as leadership has commended staff for great and effective work in a telework posture. We need to justify why in-person engagements, not anecdotal but through studies, are more effective than the new anticipated norm. We also will need to assure employees that returning to the office is safe for all. Many corporations plan on a permanent telework environment for many of staff.

We will need to clarify if Office Directors, Deputies and SLAs will be expected to be in the office more than others to supervise the new posture.

We should discontinue use of the term Tour of Duty, as this is not the military. Some people believe we are too military in our approaches to workforce matters. This is optics more than anything and I am a military guy.

We MUST be consistent in the guidance to ALL that the approval of telework agreement do not enable validated allegations of favoritism, cronyism, or a return to old-habit beliefs. All should follow the same guidance in approving telework agreements.

This will be a difficult decision, especially if other government agencies allow a more relaxed posture.

I personally have opposed, historically, more than one-two days telework per pay period but I also have learned much during the Pandemic. We must find the right balance that is fair to all as what we are doing now, for the most part, seems to be working. Naturally,

there will be circumstances where an employee is EXPECTED to be in the office for specific projects, events, meetings, etc.

A tough call.

Davtol A. c.asteLveter k<..S. Nuclear R.eguLatoq_i C01M.1M.tsstoll\\,

Dtrector, off we of PubLtc Affatrs 1.1.sssR.ocRvtlle PtRe (MatL sto:p o-1.GD3)

RQc!R,vtLLe, MI? 2 o g>.s2 301.- :'f:1.5-8'200 (o)

2:4: 0-303-05G3 (C.) -7 ~

Gfavtc!.casteLveter@ll\\,rc.gov WWW.11\\,YC.gQ\\/

Stay Connec ted to the NRC f ~ t'g ** in 91

From : Lamary, M ary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Sen t : Thu rsday, April 8, 2021 04 :19 PM To : Moore, Scott <Scott.Moore@nrc.gov >; Martin, Jody <Jody.Martin@nrc.gov >; Dacus, Eugene

<Eugene.Dacus@nrc.gov >; Decker, David < David.Decker@nrc.gov >; Castelveter, David

<David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >; Harrington, Holly <Holly.Ha rrington@nrc.gov >; Johnson, Cherish

<Cherish.Johnson@nrc.gov >; Ficks, Ben < Ben.Ficks@nrc.gov >; Zobler, Marian

<Marian.Zobler@nrc.gov >; Clark, Brooke <Brooke.Clark@nrc.gov >; Ammon, Bernice

<Bern ice.Ammon@nrc.gov >; Mamish, Nade r <Nader.Mamish@nrc.gov >; Skeen, David

<David.Skeen@nrc.gov >; Vietti-Cook, Annette <Annette.Vietti-Cook@nrc.gov >; Hawkens, Roy

<Roy. Hawkens@nre.gov >

Cc : Roberts, Ashley <Ashley.Roberts@nrc.gov >

Subject : FW: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Please see the message below; we invite your commen ts as well.

Thank you, Mary

From : Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Sen t: Thursday, April 8, 2021 3:07 PM To : OEDO ODs/DODs/RAs <OEDOODsDODsRAs@nrc.gov >

Subj ect: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Good afternoon,

Attached please find the proposed gu idance for the first six months of Phase 3 in the NRC's COVID-19 Re-occupancy Plan. The guidance has been developed based on a variety of inputs, including the recent Office/Region post assessment briefs, lessons learned, research, and NRC senior leadership.

We are providing these materials and requesting your review and comments. As you conduct your review, please bear in mind the guidance covers the first 6-month period, following our movement to Phase 3. This may not apply to each location simultaneously. As we implement, we ant icipate an iterative process that will be informed by our experience as locat ions enter Phase 3.

Please provide your comments to Ashley Roberts, no later than Friday, April 23. OCHOC will collect and aggregate the comments for OEDO's review and conside ration, and final drafting of the guidance.

PLEASE DO NOT SHARE TH IS DOCUMENT AS IT IS A DRAFT WORK I N PROGRESS DOCUMENT. PR IOR TO ISSUANCE, IT WI LL BE SHARED WITH THE UNION.

Thank you in advance and please do not hesitate to con tact Ashley or mysel f if you have any questions.

Rega rds, Mary From : Harrington, Holly Se n t: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 19:42:53 +0000 To : Using, Jason;Lamary, Mary;Castelveter, David;Gibbs-Nicholson, Jawanza;Abraham, Susan;Dilworth, Eric Subj ect : RE: 2021 OPM FEVS Governmentwide Release Update

Thanks, Jason.

For the record, Jason will pull together charts with the three major indices data for NRC, Government wide and medium agencies so that I can look at the numbers and write some talking points either highlighting good or explaining the not-so-good as to how we stack up.

Holly

From : Using, Jason <Jason.Using@nrc.gov>

Sent : Thursday, April 28, 2022 3 :25 PM To : Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov>; Lamary, Mary <Mary. Lamary@nrc.gov>; Castelveter, David <David.Castelveter@nrc.gov> ; Gibbs - Nicholson, Jawanza <Jawanza.Gibbs-Nicholson@nrc.gov> ;

Abraham, Susan <Susan.Abraham@nrc.gov>; Dilworth, Eric <Eric.Dilworth@nrc.gov>

Subj ect: RE : 2021 OPM FEVS Governmentwide Release Update

I' ll call you Holly.

From : Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >

Se nt : Thursday, April 28, 2022 3:22 PM To : Using, Jason <Jason.Lising@nrc.gov >; Lamary, Mary < Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >; Castelveter, David

<David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >; Gibbs-Nicholson, Jawanza <Jawanza.Gibbs - Nicholson@nrc.gov >;

Abraham, Susan <Susan.Abraham@nrc.gov >; Dilworth, Eric < Eric.Dilworth@nrc.gov >

Subj ect: RE: 2021 OPM FEVS Governmentwide Release Update

Did I miss something? I didn't see anything agency-specific in the attached report. In which report of the many they have listed online do I find the data specific to how the agency ranks against other medium sized agencies? To be clear, I need to see how we stack up against similar agencies and if that "stack up" is better or worse than in previous years. The part I've highlighted below in red is on the right track, but I don't see how the charts you're pasted below and the paragraph summary you wrote align.

Holly

From : Li sing, Jason <Jason.Lising@nrc.gov >

Se nt : Thursday, April 28, 2022 2:36 PM To : Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >; Harrington, Holly < Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >; Castelveter, David <David.Castelv eter@nrc.gov >; Gibbs-Nicholson, Jawanza <Jawanza.G ibbs-N icholson@nrc.gov >;

Abraham, Susan <Susan.Abraham@nrc.gov >; Dilworth, Eric <Eric.Dilworth@nrc.gov >

Subj ect : RE: 2021 OPM FEVS Governmentwide Release Update

Ho lly, The reports OPM generate this year are not the traditional ones they ' ve given in the past. The attached is now available on their website www.opm.gov/fevs.

There is a good news story to communicate - as in the past, NRC remains above the government averages in all m ajor ind ices reported. NRC a lso is marks comparatively h ig her against the ave rage mid-sized agencies excep t for in t he globa l sa tisfaction ind ex w h ich is 1 %

be low that ave rage this year. NRC also sco res well in the new performance confidence in dex.

(see OPM description below).

Gotta step away for about 30 minutes but will be back if you need anything further.

Regards, Jason

"Performance Confidence is defined as The extent to wh ich employees be lieve their organization has an outstanding competitive future, based on innovative, high quality products and services that are highly regarded by the marketplace.' Employee perceptions of their organization ' s performance, including customer service and work quality, have been linked w ith actual performance results."

Index 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Overall Engagement 1-----1 68 1----\\

(An average of the responses for the 3 sub indices below)

Leaders Lead

Superv iso rs

Intrinsic Work Experience Employee Engagement Index Scores by Agency Size

I ~

• Index (<100) (100-999) (1,000-9, 999) G'w ide Very Small Sma ll Mediu m

• Large V ery Larg e *

(10,000-74,999) (>=75,000)

Employee Engagement 71 81 76 77 73 70

Leaders Lead 60 73 66 67 62 59

Supervisors 80 88 84 85 82 79

Intrinsic Work Experience 73 82 78 78 75 73

Global Satisfaction Index Score Compar isons

Index 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Overall Satisfaction (An average o f the responses for the 4 items below)

Globa l Satisfaction Index Scores by Agency Size

Index G'w ide Very Small Sma ll Medium *

• Large Very Large *

(<100) (100-999) (1,000-9,999) (10,000-74,999) (>=75,000)

Global Satisfaction 64 77 70 71 67 63

OPM Major Indices since 20 18 FEVS Indices 2018 2019 2020 2021

Engagement : Overall 77 74 78 76

• Leaders Lead 68 65 69 64

• Supervisors 84 82 85 87

• Intrinsic Work 78 76 79 78 Experience Global Satisfaction 74 72 75 70 Performance Confiden c e - - - 91 From: Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Sent : Thursday, April 28, 2022 9:39 AM To : Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >; Using, Jason <Jason.Using@nrc.gov >; Castelveter, David <David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >; Gibbs-Nicholson, Jawanza <Jawanza.Gibbs-Nicholson@nrc.gov >;

Abraham, Susan <Susan.Abraham@nrc.gov >; Dilworth, Eric < Eric.Dilworth@nrc.gov >

Subject:

RE: 2021 OPM FEVS Governmentwide Release Update

Our pre-brief was on gwide data, no comparatives, so really nothing to h elp address how NRC stood against other agencies, etc.

From : Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 9:37 AM To: Lamary, Mary < Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >; Us ing, Jason <Jason.Using@nrc.gov >; Castelveter, David

<David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >; Gibbs-Nicholson, Jawanza <Jawa nza.Gibbs - Nicholson@nrc.gov >;

Abraham, Susan <Susan.Abraham@nrc.gov >; Dilworth, Eric < Eric.Dilworth@nrc.gov >

Subject:

RE: 2021 OPM FEVS Governmentwide Release Update

It doesn't give us any time to develop responses if we get immediate questions. Based on your pre-brief, do you have a sense of what we could/should say, if asked?

Holly

From : Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 9:36 AM To: Using, Jason <Jason.Using@nrc.gov >; Harrington, Holly < Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >; Castelveter, David <David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >; Gibbs-Nicholson, Jawanza <Jawanza.Gibbs-Nicholson@nrc.gov >;

Abraham, Susan <Susan.Abraham@nrc.gov >; Dilworth, Eric < Eric.Dilworth@nrc.gov >

Subject:

RE: 2021 OPM FEVS Governmentwide Release Update

Thanks, yes we got a prebrief last week, and were told the embargo was to be lifted the 25 th, so I have been anxiously awaiting; there are some interesting data on TW

From: Using, Jason <Jason.Using@nrc.gov >

Sent: Thu rsday, April 28, 2022 8:29 AM To: Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >; Castelveter, David < Dav id.Castelveter@nrc.gov >;

Gibbs-Nicholson, Jawan za <Jawanza.Gibbs-Nicholson@nrc.gov >; Abraham, Susan

<Susan.Abraham@nrc.gov >; Dilworth, Eric < Eric.Dilworth@nrc.gov >; Lamary, Mary

<Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Subject:

FW: 2021 OPM FEVS Governmentwide Release Update

FYI OPA/OCHCO leadership,

OPM w ill release the first set of comparative government -w ide 2021 FEVS rankings this afternoon. This information was not included in the previous reports this year so this will be our first look at how NRC ranks against other agencies and should be followed by Partnership for Public Service's Best Place to Rankings in the following weeks.

Regards,

A. Jason Lising Sr Organizational Development Specialist Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission jason.lising@nrc.gov 1301-287-05691 TWFN/ 03 B28

From: Rosales, Edgar < Edgar. Rosales@opm.gov >

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 3:34 PM To: Pendleton, Aaron <Aaron.Pendleton@nlrb.gov >; Alice Macklin <amacklin@cftc.gov >; Antoine Dotson <adotson@imls.gov >; Armando Molina <armando.molina@ibwc.gov >; Cain, Brendan

<Brendan.Cain@nrc.gov >; Camille Parks <camille. parks@ncpc.gov >; Cassie Matos <MatosC@fca.gov >;

Cathy Shrestha <CShrestha@mmc.gov >; Christinia Thomas <Christinia Thomas@nigc.gov >; Crystal Kearney-Hennings <CrystalK@dnfsb.gov >; David Kotz <DKotz@usagm.gov >; Biscieglia, Debbie

<debbieb@DNFSB.gov >; Deon Fortune - Canada <DEON. FORTUNE-CANADA@EEOC.GOV >; Earlene Sesker <sesker@access - board.gov >; Elizabeth Lyons <elyons@imls.gov >; Erica A Barker

<erica.barker@prc.gov >; Hall, Debra <dhall@o shrc.gov >; Ingram, Shanyta <singram@fmcs.gov >; Jaimie Smys e r <smyserj@abmc.gov >; Janice Minor < jm inor@ usccr.gov >; Using, Jason <Jason.Lising@nrc.gov >;

Gilliam, Jewel < jewel.gilliam@eeoc.gov >; Karen Hayden < KHayden@cpsc.gov >; Leigh Ann Massey

<lmassey@osc.gov >; Lesley Duncan <lduncan@iaf.gov >; Linda Beard <lbeard@osh rc.gov >; Lisa Lawn

<llawn@ustda.gov >; Michael Jerger < jerger@nmb.gov >; Nina Cox <NINA.COX@EEOC.GOV >; Noel Tarquinii < NJTarquinii@Kennedy-Center.org >; Olympia Hand <Olympia.Hand@usitc.gov >; Reid, Patrice

<Patrice.Reid@nrc.gov >; Patricia Midgett <pmidgett@flra.gov>; Paula Chandler <pchandler@flra.gov >;

Renee Fox < Renee Fox@nigc.gov >; Samantha Jones <Jones@nmb.gov >; Simpson, Donna

<dsimpson@cpsc.gov >; Tiffany Enoch <Tiffany R Enoch@ust r.eop.gov >; Toni Reddish

<ToniR@dnfsb.gov >; Vy Tran < Vy.Tran@FHFA.GOV >

Subject:

[External_Sender] 2021 OPM FEVS Governmentwide Release Update

Hello, For your awareness, the official OPM release of the 2021 OPM Federal Employee V iewpoint Survey (OPM FEVS) Governmentwide Management Report and governmentw ide results will be Thursday afternoon, April 28. The Governmentwide Management Report and governmentwide results w ill be availab le on our OPM FEVS website ( www.opm.gov/fevs ) under reports.

Let me know if you have any questions and I'll contact you as soon as poss ible if there are any changes to this schedule.

Thank you, From : Harrington, Holly Se n t: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 15:20 :16 +0000 To : Burnell, Scott Subj ec t: RE: Announcement from the Office of the Inspector General

When will it be over?

Holly

From : Burnell, Scott <Scott.Burnell@nrc.gov>

Se nt : Wednesday, February 09, 2022 10: 20 AM To : Harrington, Holly <Holly. Harrington@nrc.gov>

Subj ect : RE : Announcement from the Office of the Inspector General

Trying to keep track of the EPW hearing, how soon do we need to talk?

From : Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >

Sent : Wednesday, February 09, 2022 10:16 AM To: Burnell, Scott <Scott.Burnell@nrc.gov >

Subje c t: FW : Announcement from the Office of the Inspector General

Close hold. This is what we need to talk about

Holly

From : Castelveter, Dav id < David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >

Se nt : Wednesday, February 09, 2022 9:42 AM To : Harrington, Holly <Holly. Harrington@nrc.gov >

Subj e c t: Announcement from the Office of the Inspector General

FY I

1Javil 1l Castefveter 1Jirecfor, Office of 'Pu6fic 1'.ffairs Nuclear ~ulatory Commission 1vfaif Stop 0-16112.o

((577 1<pckp;f/e 'Pik,, 1<pck,,;ffe, 1v(1] 20852.

www.nrc-3011 3Df-4(5-B2.oo Office 30f-4(5-82.0f 1Jes~

240--393-9563 Ce/{

Stay Connected to the NRC f W J; ** in p Good morning, all,

I hope you are well.

The attached report conveys the result of our special inquiry (OIG Case No. C20-022) into counterfeit, fraudulent, and suspect items in operating nuclear power plants. We respectfully request a response from your office on this matter by April 11, 2022.

The issuance of this report will coincide with that of an audit report of similar subject matter sent to you under separate cover (OIG-22-A-06, Audit of the Nuclear Regu latory Commission's Oversight of Counterfeit, Fraudulent, and Suspect Items at Nuclear Power Reactors).

Both report s will b e m a d e publ ic throu gh n rc.g ov a nd a press release on Thu rsda y, Febru a ry 10.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Best rega rds,

l(b )(6) I

Office of the Inspector General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Defense Nuclear Fac ilit ies Safety Board 1 1555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Office Direct: lrb)(6)

Email :..... l(b_)(_6) ______ __,

1.'~

(I ~-- CJ C.,.

~

From : Castelveter, David Se n t: Fri, 9 Apr 202113:48:37 +0000 To : Harrington, Holly Subj ec t: Re: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

I read it several time. It is poorly composed

On: 09 April 2021 09:38, "Harrington, Holly" < Holly.Harrington @nrc.go v > wrote:

The guidance, as is typical for OCHCO, is quite dense. Among other issues, it switches back and forth between "per week" and "per pay period" verbiage, but these were my takeaways:

The office director has the authority to independently approve three days a week of telework. (I'm a little confused about how this applies to those on compressed schedules, though, as there was also verbiage about number of days per pay period in the office)

The office director AND OCH CO have to approve four telework days a week or full-time telework.

We're all going to have to take "hybrid work environment" training.

It appears that "supervisors" have to be in the office 30 percent of the time? I don't quite understand what "aim for optimal presence" means.

The guidance needlessly reiterates things like: employees shall maximize the use of technology to provide for a virtual work environment.

Most of the rest of this, as I read it, just applies to those without "portable" work. It does do away with some of the extra flexibilities that we've not been needing in our office, such as weekend hours and excused absence for childcare, etc.

It is not clear to me how this would affect Chris.

Since you've weighed in as office director and will be providing editorial comments, I'm going to refrain.

By the way, this was not pre-reviewed by the task force. My guess is this is OCHCO's first crack at a new telework policy and there will be significant discussion and rewriting to come.

Holly

Fro m : Castelveter, David <David.Castelveter@nrc.gov>

Sent : Thursday, April 08, 2021 5:24 PM To : Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov>; Moore, Scott <Scott.Moore@nrc.gov>; Martin, Jody

<Jody.Martin@nrc.gov>; Dacus, Eugene <Eugene.Dacus@nrc.gov>; Decker, David

<David.Decker@nrc.gov>; Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov>; Johnson, Cherish

<Cherish.Johnson@nrc.gov>; Ficks, Ben <Ben.Ficks@nrc.gov>; Zobler, Marian

<Marian.Zobler@nrc.gov>; Clark, Brooke <Brooke.Clark@nrc.gov>; Ammon, Bernice

<Bernice.Ammon@nrc.gov>; Mamish, Nader <Nader.Mamish@nrc.gov>; Skeen, David

<David.Skeen@nrc.gov>; Vietti-Cook, Annette <Annette.Vietti-Cook@nrc.gov> ; Hawkens, Roy

<Roy.Hawkens@nrc.gov>

Cc : Roberts, Ashley <Ashley.Roberts@nrc.gov>

Subj ect : RE: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Mary, thanks. I will provide editorial type comments to Ashley soon but a few early observations.

I recognize that this is a work in progress, and the newly proposed telework policy is in development and quite likely necessary, but the Phase 3 direction will go over like a lead brick in a deep pool.

Whether warranted or not, expectation by many employees are that they will be able to permanently telework or less than one, maybe two days per week. Many expect four days per week, if not more. Without OCHCO pre-approval, two-three days per week for many will be hard to swallow, despite prior policy and an anticipated return to pre COV ID conditions. Yes, at some point we need to define the new normal.

We should be sure to cite other organization policies, as leadership has commended staff for great and effective work in a telework posture. We need to justify why in-person engagements, not anecdotal but through studies, are more effective than the new anticipated norm. We also will need to assure employees that returning to the office is safe for all. Many corporations plan on a permanent telework environment for many of staff.

We will need to clarify if Office Directors, Deputies and SLAs will be expected to be in the office more than others to supervise the new posture.

We should discontinue use of the term Tour of Duty, as this is not the military. Some people believe we are too military in our approaches to workforce matters. This is optics more than anything and I am a military guy.

We MUST be consistent in the guidance to ALL that the approval of telework agreement do not enable validated allegations of favoritism, cronyism, or a return to old-habit beliefs. All should follow the same guidance in approving telework agreements.

This will be a difficult decision, especially if other government agencies allow a more relaxed posture.

I personally have opposed, historically, more than one-two days telework per pay period but I also have learned much during the Pandemic. We must find the right balance that is fair to all as what we are doing now, for the most part, seems to be working. Naturally,

there will be circumstances where an employee is EXPECTED to be in the office for specific projects, events, meetings, etc.

A tough call.

r:>civi.v! A. CClstelv eteY u.s. N ucL wr &0 u LcitoYl:'.I Co w.,w.,i,ssi.0111, Di.rector, office of p ub Li.c Affcii,ys 1.1.555 R.o c &VLL ke PL&e (Mcii.L sto:p 0-1.GD3 )

Rocf?,vme, MD ::2.og,52 301.-+/-1.S-g>::2.oo Co )

24 0-303-05G3 ( e,)

-7 --

v!civi.cl.ccisteLv eter@111,y c. 0ov www.111,y c.0w Stay Con n ec ted to the NRC f ~ /I ** in p

Fro m : Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Sen t: Thursday, April 8, 2021 04:19 PM To : Moore, Scott <Scott.Moore@nrc.gov >; Martin, Jody <Jody.Martin@nrc.gov >; Dacus, Eugene

<Eugene.Dacus@nrc.gov >; Decker, David < David.Decker@nrc.gov>; Castelveter, David

<David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >; Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >; Johnson, Cherish

<Cherish.Johnson@nrc.gov >; Ficks, Ben < Ben.Ficks@nrc.gov >; Zobler, Marian

<Marian.Zobler@nrc.gov >; Clark, Brooke <Brooke. Clark@nrc.gov >; Ammon, Bernice

<Bernice.Ammon@nrc.gov >; Mamish, Nade r <Nader.Mamish@nrc.gov >; Skeen, David

<David.Skeen@nrc.gov >; Vietti-Cook, Annette <Annette.Vietti-Cook@nrc.gov >; Hawkens, Roy

<Roy. Hawken s@nre.gov >

Cc : Roberts, Ashley <Ashley.Roberts@nrc.gov >

Subj e ct: FW: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Please see the message below; we invite your comments as well.

Thank you, Mary

Fro m : Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Se nt : Thursday, April 8, 2021 3:07 PM To : OEDO ODs/DODs/RAs <OEDOODsDODsRAs@nrc.gov >

Subj ec t: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Good afternoon,

Attached please find the proposed guidance for the first six months of Phase 3 in the NRC's COVID - 19 Re -occupancy Plan. The guidance has been developed based on a variety of inputs, including the recent Office/Region post assessment briefs, lessons learned, research, an d NRC senior leadership.

We are providing these materials and requesting your review and comments. As you conduct your review, please bear in mind the guidance covers the first 6-month period, following our movement to Phase 3. This may not apply to each location simultaneously. As we implement, we anticipate an iterative process that will be informed by our experience as locat ions enter Phase 3.

Please provide your comments to Ashley Roberts, no later than Friday, April 23. OCHOC will collect and aggregate the comments for OEDO's review and consideration, and final drafting o f the guidance.

PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS DOCUMENT AS IT IS A DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE, IT WILL BE SHARED WITH THE UNION.

Thank you in advance and please do not hesitate to contact Ashley or myself if you have any questions.

Regards, Mary From: Castelveter, David Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 00:17: 15 +0000 To: Hawkens, Roy

Subject:

Re: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Thank y ou sir

On: 12 Ap ri l 2021 19:30, "Hawkens, Roy" < Roy.Hawkens@nrc.gov > wrote:

H i David,

FYI.

Best Wishes,

Roy

From: Hawk e ns, Roy Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Ashley <Ashley.R oberts@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Good Afternoon Ashley,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your drafts. I have a few high-altitude observations.

As David correctly intimates in his email below, it will be a challenging (perhaps impossible) task to define a Phase 3 that will satisfy everyone. I support David's suggestion that (1) we need to assure employees that returning to the office is safe for everyone, including those who take public transportation and those who work in cubicles; (2) our policy should endeavor, in appearance and practice, to be reasonable,

impartial, even-handed, and fair -- from both an individual and institutional standpoint; (3) we should justify why in-person engagements are necessary to enhance or facilitate the fulfillment of our mission, and we should do this using objective, not anecdotal,

evidence ; and (4) it would be well to support our final position by reference to the policies of other agencies and organizations.

Also, although I recognize the need for well-defined rules, it is my impression that the rules, as drafted, may be viewed as unduly prescriptive and unnecessarily complicated.

The instructions in the memo, in addition to being more reader-friendly, also seemed to be more flexible, taking into account the differing needs of each office and the differing responsibilities of each Staff member.

Hang in there. Thank you for your efforts to formulate a process that will return us to the new normal.

Wishing you safety and health, Roy E. Roy Hawkens Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 301-415-5147

From : Castelveter, David < David.Ca stelveter@nrc.gov >

Sent : Thursday, April 08, 2021 5:24 PM To : Lamary, Mary < Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >; Moore, Scott <Scott.Moore@nrc.gov >; Martin, Jody

<Jody.Martin@nrc.gov >; Dacus, Eugene <Eugene.Dacus@nrc.gov >; Decker, David

<David.Decker@nrc.gov >; Harrington, Holly < Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >; Johnson, Cherish

<Cherish.Johnson@nrc.gov >; Ficks, Ben < Ben.Ficks@nrc.gov >; Zobler, Marian

<Marian.Zobler@nrc.gov >; Clark, Brooke <Brooke. Clark@nrc.gov >; Ammon, Bernice

<Bernice.Ammon@nrc.gov >; Mamish, Nader <Nader.Mamish@nrc.gov >; Skeen, David

<David.Skeen@nrc.gov >; Vietti-Cook, Annette <Annette.Vietti-Cook@nrc.gov >; Hawkens, Roy

<Roy.Hawkens@nrc.gov >

Cc : Roberts, Ashley < Ashley.Roberts@nrc.gov >

Subject:

RE: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Mary, thanks. I will provide editorial type comments to Ashley soon but a few early observations.

I recognize that this is a work in progress, and the newly proposed telework policy is in development and quite likely necessary, but the Phase 3 direction will go over like a lead brick in a deep pool.

Whether warranted or not, expectation by many employees are that they will be able to permanently telework or less than one, maybe two days per week. Many expect four days per week, if not more. Without OCHCO pre-approval, two-three days per week for many will be hard to swallow, despite prior policy and an anticipated return to pre COVID conditions. Yes, at some point we need to define the new normal.

We should be sure to cite other organization policies, as leadership has commended staff for great and effective work in a telework posture. We need to justify why in-person engagements, not anecdotal but through studies, are more effective than the new anticipated norm. We also will need to assure employees that returning to the office is safe for all. Many corporations plan on a permanent telework environment for many of staff.

We will need to clarify if Office Directors, Deputies and SLAs will be expected to be in the office more than others to supervise the new posture.

We should discontinue use of the term Tour of Duty, as this is not the military. Some people believe we are too military in our approaches to workforce matters. This is optics more than anything and I am a military guy.

We MUST be consistent in the guidance to ALL that the approval of telework agreement do not enable validated allegations of favoritism, cronyism, or a return to old-habit beliefs. All should follow the same guidance in approving telework agreements.

This will be a difficult decision, especially if other government agencies allow a more relaxed posture.

I personally have opposed, historically, more than one-two days telework per pay period but I also have learned much during the Pandemic. We must find the right balance that is fair to all as what we are doing now, for the most part, seems to be working. Naturally,

there will be circumstances where an employee is EXPECTED to be in the office for specific projects, events, meetings, etc.

A tough call.

r:>avLd A casteLveter k:{,.S. Nuclear ReguLatoQ_J CoW..W..LSSLOV\\,

PL rector, office of PubLtc Aff0trs 1.1-555 Roct?,vaLe Ptfee {MatL sto:p O-1.Gt:>3)

R.ocR.Vi.LLe, Mt:> 20~5:2 301.-41-5-fP_00 (O) 240-393-95G3 (e,)._r -

C\\t:lVLd.casteLveter:@111,yc.gov www. 111,rc. gov Stay Con n ec ted to the NRC f " ~ ** in ~

From : Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Se n t: Thursday, April 8, 2021 04:19 PM To : Moore, Scott <Scott.Moore@nrc.gov >; Martin, Jody <Jody.Martin@nrc.gov >; Dacus, Eugene

<Eugene.Dacus@nrc.gov >; Decker, David < David.Decker@nrc.gov >; Castelveter, David

<Dav id.Castelveter@nrc.gov >; Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >; Johnson, Cherish

<Cherish.Johnson@nrc.gov >; Ficks, Ben < Ben.Ficks@nrc.gov >; Zobler, Marian

<Marian.Zobler@nrc.gov >; Clark, Brooke <Brooke. Clark@nrc.gov >; Ammon, Bernice

<Bernice.Ammon@nrc.gov >; Mamish, Nade r <Nader.Mamish@nrc.gov >; Skeen, David

<Dav id.Skeen@nrc.gov >; Vietti-Cook, Annette <Annette.Vietti-Cook@nrc.gov >; Hawkens, Roy

<Roy. Hawkens@nre.gov >

Cc : Roberts, Ashley <Ashley.Roberts@n rc.gov >

Subj e ct : FW: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Please see the message below; we invite your comments as well.

Thank you, Mary Fro m : Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Sen t: Thursday, April 8, 2021 3:07 PM To : OEDO ODs/DODs/RAs <0EDOODsDODsRAs@nrc.gov >

Subj ec t: CLOSE HOLD - Draft Phase 3 Guidance

Good afternoon,

Attached please find the proposed guidance for the first six months of Phase 3 in the NRC's COVID-19 Re -occupancy Plan. The guidance has been developed based on a variety of inputs, including the recent Office/Region post assessment briefs, lessons learned, research, and NRC senio r leadership.

We are providing these materials and requesting your review and comments. As you conduct your review, please bear in mind the guidance covers the first 6-month period, following our movement to Phase 3. This may not apply to each location simultaneously. As we implement, we anticipate an iterative process that will be informed by our experience as locations enter Phase 3.

Please provide your comments to Ashley Roberts, no later than Friday, April 23. OCHOC will collect and aggregate the comments for OEDO's review and consideration, and final drafting of the guidance.

PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS DOCUMENT AS IT IS A DRAFT WORK IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE, IT WILL BE SHARED WITH THE UNION.

Thank you in advance and please do not hesitate to contact Ashley or myself if you have any questions.

Regards, Mary From : Harrington, Holly Se n t: Wed, 25 May 2022 13:28:37 +0000 To : Wellock, Thomas Subj ect : RE: Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson

1 d say answer whatever questions you can. Let l me know how it goes and 1111 write up a TNT.

Holly

From : Wellock, Thomas <Thomas.Wellock@nrc.gov>

Se nt : Wednesday, May 25, 2022 9:15 AM To : Harrington, Holly <Holly. Harrington@nrc.gov>

Subj ect: RE : Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson

I'd be happy to talk to her, but I don't think I can comment on Jackson as a scholar. The question should directed to physicists with an expertise in her field. I only know her importance as a regu lator.

Tom

From : Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >

Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 9:12 AM To : Wellock, Thomas <Thomas.We llock@nrc.gov >

Subj ect: FW: Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson

Good morning! Is this something you'd feel comfortable responding to?

Holly

ContactUsID: 3135

Public Affairs Location: opa.resourc e@nrc.go v

Subject:

Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson

ContactUsCategory:

ContactUsDoc u mentTi tl e:

ContactUsNumberTitle:

uest ion or Comment: I am a w ri ter with b)(6)

(b)(6) I am working on an article about Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, retiring president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who served as ch a irperson of the U.S. Nuclear Regulato ry Commis sion from 1995 to 1999. I s there anyone at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission able to speak about Dr. Jackson as a scholar and re searcher as well as her impa ct on women of color in physics and STEM? Thank you for your time and attention.kb)(6) 1Tell(b)(6) I

Would you like to remain anonymous?: False

Name :,__l(b_)(_6) _ ___,

E-mai1j~(b_)<5_ ) ____ ~

Organization : l~(b_)_(6_) __________ ~

Address: ~l(b_)(_6) __ ~

City: l(b)(6)

State i(b )(6)

ZIP/Postal Code :l(b)(6)

Country: United States of America

Phone :._l<b_)(_6) __ ___.

From : Castelveter, David Se n t: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 21:01:08 +0000 To : Harrington, Holly Subj ect : RE: Draft Memos - CLOSE HOLD

Well, that is the intent, but, the change requires compliance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Davi.~ A. c.asteLveter u.s. NucLecir ReguLatort1 CQV1,1,V1A.i.ssi.QV\\,

Di.rector, office of PubLi.c Aff ai.rs 1.1.SSS 'RQCR,Vi.lle Pi.k'.,e (Mai.L stqi 0-1.hD.3)

RDclevi.LLe, MD 20S'52 301.-41.S-©,OO (O) 24O -303-0Sh3 (C.) _r.....:,

~avi.~.ccisteLveter@V\\,rc.gov www.V\\,rc.gov Stay Connected to the NRC f ~ ?A ** in ~

From : Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov>

Sent : Friday, July 23, 2021 04:56 PM To : Castelveter, David <David.Castelveter@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Draft Memos - CLOSE HOLD

The challenging part, as I read it, is the apparent insistence on four days in the office per pay period no matter what. So if someone takes a week of vacation, then the following week, they must be in the office four days. If their in-office day is a Monday and Monday is a holiday or they take Monday as annual leave, then they have to select another day in that pay period to come in? Why can't we just say

- come into the office one or two days a week or as necessary and be grown-ups about it?

Holly

From : Castelveter, David < David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >

Sent : Friday, July 23, 2021 4:49 PM To : Harrington, Holly <Holly.Ha rrington@nrc.gov >

Subj ect: RE: Draft Memos - CLOSE HOLD

We have been digesting every day, multi time per day, these issues. What you have brought up, in some fashion, have been asked by other Directors and Deputies. We meet again Monday. Margie and the Chairman need to meet to discuss possibly his issues. There are so many complexities. It will not be an easy decision or uncomplicated formula.

DcivLd A. c cisteLveter u.s. NucLecir ReguLcitorl:j C,oVl,\\.11\\,\\.[ssLoV\\,

DLyector:, off we of p u b LLc A:ffci[rs 1.1.555 Ro c &vLLLe POee (MCILL Sto:p O-1.b D 3 )

Ro c rx,vLLle, MD 2og52 301.-41.S-g>:2.oo (o) 240-3113-11563 (C,)

_,r --

dcivLd.ccisteLveter@V\\,rc.gov WWW.V\\, y e,. gQ\\/

Sta y Con n ec ted to the NRC f ~ III ** in ~

From: Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >

Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 04:30 PM To: Castelveter, David <David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >

Subject:

FW: Draft Memos - CLOSE HOLD

As usual, I'm left scratching my head and saying huh?

1. Telework Schedules* may be approved as follows:

a. 2-3 telework days AND 2 in-person days per week may be approved by supervisor ( may include one regularly scheduled day off, i.e., 9-day work schedule) What?

b. 4-5 telework days per week must be approved by supervisor and Office Director/Regional Administrator, so long as the requirement for 4 in-person days per pay period is satisfied (may include two regularly scheduled days off, i.e.,

four 10-hour days per week) What?

c. Full-time telework schedules of any kind, and exceptions to the requirement for 4 in-person days per pay period (includes work schedules consisting of 8, 9, or 10 work days) must be approved by the Office Director/Regional AND Ch ief Human Capital Officer - based on what c riteria?

Holly

From: Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Sent: Friday, July 23, 20214:21 PM To: Castelveter, David <David.Castelveter@nrc.gov >; Moore, Scott <Scott.Moore@nrc.gov >; Martin, Jody <Jody.Martin@nrc.gov >; Dacus, Eugene < Eugene.Dacus@nrc.gov >; Decker, David

<David.Decker@nrc.gov >; Harrington, Holly < Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov >; Johnson, Cherish

<Cherish.Johnson@n rc.gov >; Ficks, Ben < Ben.Ficks@nrc.gov >; Zobler, Marian

<Marian.Zobler@nrc.gov >; Clark, Brooke <Brooke.Clark@nrc.gov >; Ammon, Bernice

<Bernice.Ammon@nrc.gov >; Mamish, Nader < Nader.Mamish@nrc.gov >; Skeen, David

<David.Skeen@nrc.gov >; Vietti-Cook, Annette <Annette.Vietti-Cook@nrc.gov >; Hawkens, Roy

<Roy. Hawkens@nre.gov >

Subj ec t: FW: Draft Memos - CLOSE HOLD

Good afternoon,

Please see attached for review and comment. Sorry for quick turnaround.

My apologies for the oversight, didn't realize these offices we re not included in the master Office Director distribution.

Mary

From : Lamary, Mary Se n t: Thursday, July 22, 20218 :24 AM To : Feitel, Robert <Robert.Feitel@nrc.gov >

Cc : O'Connell, Edward <Edward.O'Connell@nrc.gov>; Bartley, Malion < Malion.Bartley@nrc.gov >

Subj ect : FW: Draft Memos - CLOSE HOLD

Good Morning,

I apologize for not including you on the distribution yesterday; I didn't realize OIG was not included in the distribution.

Please see the attached materials, and feel free to reach out directly to me if you have questions on the materials. We currently do not have an approved plan from 0MB so we have redacted the proposed re entry date, pending their approval.

Regards, Mary

From : Lamary, Mary <Mary.Lamary@nrc.gov >

Sen t: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 5:41 PM To : OEDO ODs/DODs/RAs <OEDOODsDODsRAs@nrc.gov>

Cc : Miotla, Sherri <Sherri.Miotla@nrc.gov >; Roberts, Darrell < Darrell.Roberts@nrc.gov >; Corbett, James

<James.Corbett@nrc.gov >; Giessner, Jack <John.Giessner@nrc.gov >; Castelveter, David

<Dav id.Castelveter@nrc.gov >; Woods, Mary <Mary.Woods@nrc.gov >; Lombard, Mark

<Mark.Lombard@nrc.gov >; Scott, Cathy <Catherine.Scott@nrc.gov >

Subj e ct: Draft Memos - CLOSE HOLD

Good afternoon

As noted in today's call, attached please find two draft memos. We ask that you review the documents for "show stoppers" only. Understand these are meant to provide the guidance and parameters around the re-entry implementation. We are aware there are many var iables and case -by -case situations that will need input from subject matter experts; however, it is not possible to describe each one in these documents.

We are finalizing the chart that will be a sort of decision tree for "I want this schedule, who/what is approval process", which I am confident will be a useful tool but is not needed for your review of the messaging in the memo. Also, as a reminder, we will be conducting the training/listening sessions to provide assistance to you.

Please remember your review and feedback is due by COB tomorrow.

Regards, Mary From : Harrington, Holly Se n t: Tue, 14 Sep 202113:56:05 +0000 To : Jarriel, Lisamarie;Checkle, Melanie;Mendez, Sandra Cc : Edwards, Denise Subj ect : RE: Questions from Cl *SENSITIVE INFO*

We do not have a blog.

We do not allow users to put up a post on the agency Facebook page. However, if we did a post on our allegation process, they could comment. (We did this recently, so they could, if they choose, comment on that post.) Otherwise, comments on Face book, per our policy, must relate to the topic of the post, so they could not randomly post their experience on an unrelated post. Note: There are guidelines that do not allow for personal attacks, etc., in our comments. So as long as the review was about process and outcome, however negative, it would stand. Personal attacks on employees would not.

One option for you to consider is to invite "a review" via email that you would post on your web page.

Submitters could not post it directly to the page, but you post their " review" and it would be public.

Once you create such a page and email box, we could do a Facebook post and Tweet about the new review option.

Holly Harrington Senior Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-8203

From : Jarriel, Lisamarie <Lisamar ie.Jarriel@nrc.gov>

Sent : Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9: 37 AM To : Checkle, Melanie <Melanie.Checkle@nrc.gov> ; Mendez, Sandra <Sandra.Mendez Gonzalez@nrc.gov>

Cc : Edwards, Denise <Denise.Edwards@nrc.gov>; Harrington, Holly <Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov>

Subj ect : RE: Questions from Cl

• SENSITIVE INFO*

FB page? Do we still have the Blog? The NAECP? The Allegation Program itself, does not have such a spot.

From : Checkle, Melanie <Melanie.Checkle@nrc.gov >

Sent : Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9: 22 AM To : Jarriel, Lisamarie <Lisamarie.Jarriel@nrc.gov >; Mendez, Sand ra < Sand ra.Mendez Gonz a lez@nrc.gov >

Cc : Edwards, Denise <Denise.Edwards@nrc.gov >

Subje ct : Questions from Cl *SENSITIVE INFO*

Good morning ladies. I have a Cl requesting that we add "a process or platform for an individual to anonymously share their allegation experience (OE) with others in the industry." Other than passing on the request to you guys, is there any other suggestions on how to respond to him? Is there a formal process for a member of the public to provide feedback on the allegation process?

As for question #2 below, I intend to inform the individual that our requirement is that licensee's post NRC Form 3 which advises of DOL filing requirements, etc. Do you know of any GET CFR requirements regarding filing discrimination complaints with the NRC?

Thanks in advance,

Melanie

From :l,_(b _)(_6) ________ _,

Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 6:18 PM To: Checkle, Melanie <Melanie.Checkle@nrc.gov >

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: [External_Sender]

1. How can we get that added? I've learned an awful lot going through the allegation process. Real actual OE from people who have gone through the process goes a long way. In the nuclear power field we share industry OE so others learn from their mistakes and don't make the same mistake all over again.

2. How can we get the Licensee's to update their Generic Employee Training (GET)? Emp loyers give emp loyees a false sense of security by telling them that they can always go to the NRC with their concerns. Conveniently leaving out the fact that the NRC can not prov ide you a personal remedy if your Emp loyer retaliates against you. Employees need to ask themselves, Is it worth the risk of bringing up the concern if you could possib ly lose your livelihood? The NRC does not work for the License and therefore has an added barrier against reta liation.

Sent from Mai l for Windows

From : Checkle, Me lanie Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:55 AM To:! (b )(6) l

Subject:

RE: [Externa l_Sender]

l(b)(6) lthe NRC does not have a process or platform for individuals to anonymously share their allegation experience (OE) with others in the industry. Thanks.

'M.efanie 'M.. Cli£ckfe Senior Allegation Coordinator Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission II W: 404.997.4426 I ~ F: 404.997.4903 I 18lE: melanie.checkle@nrc. gov

• Please be advised that the NRC cannot protec t the informa tion dur ing transmission on the In ternet and there is a poss ib ility tha t someone could read your response while it is in transit.*

From:l (b )(6) I Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2021 9:07 AM To : Checkle, Melanie <Melanie.Check le@nrc.gov >

Subject:

[External_Sender]

Does the NRC have a process or platform for an individual to anonymously share their allegation experience (OE) with others in the industry? Licensee employee's with allegations or safety concerns do not need to lose sight of who they work for and who pays their salaries. The nuclear power indus try is a business. They are in the business to make a profit. NRC representatives do not work for the licensee and therefore are some what shielded from direct retaliation. Individuals need to know that even though the NRC enforces the licensee to promote a Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE), they can not protect them from retaliation by their employer.